Oral
Answers to
Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cameroon

Tonia Antoniazzi: What discussions he has had with his French counterpart on the reported increase in violence in Cameroon.

Harriett Baldwin: The UK regularly discusses the violence in Cameroon with international partners, including France and the United States, and I welcome French support for the recent UK-Austria joint UN Human Rights Council statement about the deteriorating situation in Cameroon.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Southern Cameroons voted to join French Cameroon on the basis that they would be federated states equal in status, but this is clearly not what has happened. It is treated as a region made up of second-class citizens. The UK has a duty to Southern Cameroons to use all available instruments to find a solution to the growing crisis that takes into account the wishes of the people. Will the Secretary of State meet me and a delegation of Southern Cameroons to discuss possible solutions?

Harriett Baldwin: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the first question on the Order Paper, because this is a worsening crisis. The UK has been strongly engaged with our international partners to find a way forward. Of course, the UK respects the territorial integrity of Cameroon, but we also believe that, where there are calls for more autonomy in the south-west and north-west, the Government of Cameroon need to engage in an inclusive political dialogue, because the violence from both sides is creating a serious situation for civilians on the ground.

Stephen Crabb: In her discussions with her US counterparts about the worrying situation in Cameroon, has the Minister asked them about suggestions made that resources they have given to help the Cameroonian Government in the fight against terror and Boko Haram are being diverted, misused and used in attacks on some of the communities in Cameroon?

Harriett Baldwin: As I often find myself saying during questions, I am happy to be accountable for what the UK Government have been doing, and I can confirm that we have extensive discussions with the Government of Cameroon, who, as my right hon. Friend will know, are a partner with the international community in the fight against Boko Haram and the Islamic State in West Africa in the north of the country. We also have discussions with international partners to find a way forward on the views expressed with increasing violence by those of a separatist tendency in the south-west and north-west provinces.

Alison Thewliss: One of my constituents is a member of the South Cameroonian diaspora and is deeply concerned about what is going on. A recent Amnesty report noted the presence of arbitrary arrest, torture in detention and the existence of secret and illegal detention facilities in Cameroon. Does the Minister agree that such activities are in stark violation of the Commonwealth Charter, and if so what efforts has she made to engage with Cameroon through the Commonwealth?

Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the range of different human rights violations and abuses noted in the statement which we were pleased to see 39 countries sign at the most recent UN Human Rights Council. Specifically on the Commonwealth,  I can tell the House that Lord Ahmad, the Minister  for the Commonwealth, wrote to the Commonwealth Secretary-General recently to share UK concerns about Cameroon and press for further Commonwealth engagement on the matter.

Philip Hollobone: The UK’s aim is to be the largest G7 investor in Africa by 2022. Will any of that investment be going to Cameroon?

Harriett Baldwin: My hon. Friend states the UK’s policy aim to be an ambitious investor in African economies, and I can confirm that there are UK companies that invest in Cameroon; businesses are absolutely free to choose to do. In terms of the political track, though, we are trying to engage with the Government of Cameroon—I spoke to the Prime Minister there recently—to encourage them to find a way forward in a political and inclusive dialogue that can address some of the concerns being raised.

Alistair Carmichael: I spent time in Cameroon in 2013 as a political volunteer with Voluntary Service Overseas, and it breaks my heart to see what is happening to that beautiful country today. It seems to me that there is a potent mix of contemporary challenges and the long tail of our own and, indeed, French colonial history. Can we take a two-pronged approach? Will our colleagues in the Department for International Development tackle the urgent crises involving displaced peoples and conflict, and will the Minister’s own office make a proper effort to secure a diplomatic solution?

Harriett Baldwin: As the right hon. Gentleman says, there is an ongoing humanitarian crisis. Earlier this year I authorised work by us, through UNICEF, to provide immediate humanitarian assistance. More than  400,000 people have been displaced in the crisis, and more than 30,000 have fled to Nigeria. DFID is doing programming work, and we are urging the Cameroon Government to allow humanitarian actors access to all parts of the country.

Liz McInnes: Last week, Human Rights Watch said:
“Government forces in Cameroon’s Anglophone regions have killed scores of civilians…and torched hundreds of homes over the past six months.”
How many more innocent victims need to be slaughtered for Cameroon to be suspended by the Commonwealth?

Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Lady is right: there have been human rights abuses and human rights violations on all sides in the conflict. Hospitals have been burnt and villages torched. We drew attention to a range of issues in a statement at the United Nations Human Rights Council, which the UK sponsored. Obviously the UK is a member of the Commonwealth, and our Commonwealth Minister has written to the Commonwealth Secretariat suggesting that it encourage discussions on this topic in future meetings.

John Bercow: Before we move to Question 2 and I call the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), I hope that the whole House will want to join me in extending a warm welcome to Gareth Evans, QC, who served with great distinction as a Cabinet Minister in Australia from 1983 until 1996 under—if memory serves me—the Hawke and Keating Governments. As we have just been talking about human rights, let us not forget that he was a key architect of the United Nations’ responsibility to protect. We celebrate that achievement, and many people around the world, sir, will be thankful to you for your leadership on that front.

Persecution of Christians Overseas

Martin Vickers: What steps his Department is taking to help tackle the persecution of Christians overseas.

Victoria Prentis: What steps his Department is taking to help tackle the persecution of Christians overseas.

Alex Chalk: What steps his Department is taking to help tackle the persecution of Christians overseas.

Paul Masterton: What steps his Department is taking to help tackle the persecution of Christians overseas.

Jeremy Hunt: It is a pleasure to interrupt a mammoth Cabinet meeting to enjoy the harmony and consensus for which the House is famous. [Laughter.]
The United Kingdom has long championed freedom of religion, but I think we should do more for the estimated 240 million Christians who face persecution for their faith around the world. I have therefore asked the Bishop of Truro to conduct a review, which I hope he will deliver in the summer.

Martin Vickers: The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware of an Open Doors report which predicts a 14% increase in the persecution of Christians this year. It also says that North Korea is the most dangerous place in which to practise Christianity, where it is seen as a threat to the Communist regime. What work are the Government doing with such non-democratic countries to try to ease the persecution of the Christian community?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the Open Doors report, which contains some stark statistics. It states, for example, that 80% of the people who suffer persecution for their religious belief are Christians. The most striking statement is that the vast majority are in the very poorest countries: this is not, on the whole, a problem affecting people who live in affluent countries.
My hon. Friend is right to mention that countries such as North Korea have been singled out. The purpose of the review is to ensure that we use all the UK’s diplomatic leverage to highlight these issues and put pressure on those regimes to change.

Victoria Prentis: The Open Doors report says that about 245 million Christians are suffering high levels of persecution in 73 countries. Where is the UK focusing our help?

Jeremy Hunt: I want to ensure that we exercise maximum influence where we have that influence. The striking thing about that report is that, notwithstanding the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) made about North Korea, some of the worst offenders are in the middle east, notably Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan and Somalia, where the population of Christians has fallen from 20% to around 5%. In many of those countries, we have big aid budgets and a lot of influence.

Alex Chalk: The UK has a proud history of standing up for the rights of minority faith groups, both in the United Kingdom and overseas. As the Secretary of State says, we have a budget of over £2 billion, which is being allocated to the middle east and Syria, where the situation is particularly appalling. How can we use that budget to protect Christians from the appalling persecution they are facing?

Jeremy Hunt: I pay tribute to the Department for International Development, which has allocated £12 million recently specifically to promote freedom of religious belief. The gist of my hon. Friend’s question is right—where we have a large aid budget, with countries such as Afghanistan, it is absolutely essential that we make it clear to the Government in those countries that we are expecting progress on freedom of religious belief. We need to remember that many of the worst conflicts in the world have happened because people of different religions have clashed; so promoting harmony between religions is one of the best long-term ways of promoting peace.

Paul Masterton: Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that often the persecution of Christians does not get the attention that it deserves—almost as though there was a bizarre hierarchy of victims, whereby they are not deserving of the same degree of attention as others? If we are serious about tackling freedom of  religious belief and expression, we need to ensure that much more attention is given to some of the awful examples of persecution of Christians right around the world, and that the Government are not ashamed to step up and call it out.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right. I think it is fair to say that there has been some hesitation in the past in our embracing the issue of persecution of Christians—whether from a misguided concern about our history and the role of missionaries, I do not know—but now is the time when we have to put all that behind us and say that freedom of religious belief is an essential and indivisible part of freedom, full stop. The UK should always be on the right side of that issue.

Derek Twigg: Christians are some of the most persecuted in the world, and clearly we have to do more to help. I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about the work that he has commissioned. Are Christian women not often doubly persecuted, for both their religion and their gender? That needs looking at very closely as well; there needs to be more work around the world with Governments to tackle that problem.

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I would widen the point even further, and say that women from all religions, not just Christian religions, are double victims. Where there is persecution of any religion, often women come off worst. I think the most inspiring example of courage in the face of that persecution is Nadia Murad, the recent Nobel peace prize winner, a Yazidi campaigner who suffered absolutely horrifically but is an inspiration to persecuted women all over the world.

Helen Jones: Could the Government go one step further in contesting the persecution of Christians around the world by making it clear that Asia Bibi, who has been persecuted for many years for her faith, will be offered asylum in this country for herself and her family, should she wish to accept it?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Lady for her interest in the Asia Bibi case, which I know is shared in all parts of this House. I reassure the hon. Lady that making sure that she is safe, and has somewhere safe to go, is a top priority for this Government. We have had numerous private discussions with the Pakistani Government about how to progress this issue. I do not want to go into the details of those discussions, but we are making progress and I am very hopeful that this will have a positive outcome.

Chris Evans: Risca in my constituency has a large Egyptian Coptic church, to which many people travel every weekend to worship. Many of their family members and friends are subject to terrible persecution in Egypt and have been, as the Secretary of State knows, subject to terrorist acts. What reassurance can he give my constituents and those who travel to the Coptic church that everything is being done to stamp that out?

Jeremy Hunt: The atrocities suffered by the Copts are some of the very worst suffered by Christians anywhere, and there have been several examples of those in Egypt. However, the Egyptians are trying very hard to address  these issues. They recently opened a brand-new cathedral, and that is a big step forward for any country in the middle east. We obviously want to encourage them on the journey.

Helen Goodman: It is good that the Foreign Secretary has come to the peace zone—this Chamber—this morning.
China continues to be one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a Christian. Non-approved churches are being closed down and pastors are being jailed. How does he intend to strike the balance between valuing China as a post-Brexit trade partner and standing up for those people in China whose human rights are being abused because of their religion?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Lady for asking that question. Of course China is an important country with which we have critical relations in the world, but having those relations means that we have to be able to raise issues of concern when we meet our Chinese counterparts. That is what I did when I visited China in August last year and raised concerns about freedom of religion in Xinjiang province. We had the universal periodic review in November last year, and concerns were also raised at the 40th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. We will continue to raise those concerns with China at every opportunity.

Rules-based International Order

John Lamont: What steps he is taking to strengthen the rules-based international order.

Jeremy Hunt: The rules-based international system has made the world collectively massively safer and more prosperous than it has ever been before. This country played a major role in setting it up and we will always defend it, as we did when we held Russia to account after the terrible attack in Salisbury.

John Lamont: It has now been five years since the annexation of Crimea by Russia and since then Putin has repeatedly proved to be one of the greatest threats to the rules-based international order. The UK has led international efforts to try to make Russia see sense, and this has very much taken place online and in the media. With this in mind, will the Foreign Secretary join me in urging Members of Parliament to think twice about appearing on Russia Today, which remains a propaganda tool of the Russian state?

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments; he could not be more right. It is incredibly important that when Russia does things such as invading neighbouring countries, as it did in Crimea, no one in this House should say things such as the Leader of the Opposition said, which is that Russia has more right on its side than Ukraine. That is quite wrong, and it is giving people permission to do that kind of thing again.

Stephen Twigg: Climate change is the biggest challenge facing the world today. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what the Government are doing to maintain an international  focus on this and, in particular, what representations he has made to the Trump Administration in the United States on this crucial question?

Jeremy Hunt: We have been investing a huge amount in our global leadership on climate change, and we are the G20 country that has the biggest drop in emissions per unit of GDP. We are also bidding to host COP 26, which will be the next big climate change conference on the fifth anniversary of the Paris conference. We have a different view from that of the Trump Administration, and we are very open about that with them. It is all the more important that the countries that do not share their view and that think we have a responsibility to future generations should stand proud in our support for this vital agenda.

Thomas Tugendhat: My right hon. Friend has made powerful comments about the role of the United Kingdom as a network player in the international rules-based system. Will he tell the House a little bit about the work he has been doing with our European partners, especially after the Foreign Affairs Committee published its report about a year ago on how to look forward to working with our European partners, on supporting the international order and the international rules-based system that Britain played such an important part in building?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. In all the debates we have about Brexit—I have now met my counterparts in every EU country—the one thing that comes across loud and clear is that the part of the world that has suffered the most from not having adherence to a rules-based international order is Europe. That is why European countries say to us constantly that they want to continue to have their vital strategic and military relations with the United Kingdom, whatever the outcome of Brexit, and that they want Britain to play a strong and influential role in upholding the rules-based order across the world. That is what we will do.

Gareth Thomas: The rules-based international order would be strengthened if countries were seen to be held accountable for adhering to the conclusions of the United Nations Human Rights Council. What steps are Ministers taking to hold Sri Lanka to account for its failure to bring to justice those who are guilty of perpetuating major human rights abuses?

Jeremy Hunt: This is something on which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Asia and the Pacific has done an enormous amount of work through his contacts with the Sri Lankan Government. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue, not least because many members of the Sri Lankan community in this country have a great deal of concern about it. Overall, the picture in Sri Lanka is remarkably better than it was a decade ago. However, there will never be lasting peace unless there is justice and accountability for the things that went wrong.

Nicholas Soames: Is it not a matter of the greatest regret that our most important ally, the United States, is in clear contravention of United Nations Security Council resolution 497 by  recognising Israeli sovereignty claims over Golan? As annexation of territory is prohibited under international law, will the Foreign Secretary send a very strong message to the United States that the British House of Commons condemns unreservedly this breach of the rules-based order?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do that. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right—we should never recognise the annexation of territory by force. That has been one of the great achievements since the founding of the United Nations. I do that with a very heavy heart, because Israel is an ally and a shining example of democracy in a part of the world where that is not common. We want Israel to be a success, and we consider it to be a great friend, but on this we do not agree.

Hannah Bardell: If we are to maintain a rules-based international order and strengthen it, the Foreign Secretary will agree that reciprocal arrangements for our constituents when they go abroad or when citizens of other countries come here are absolutely vital. Julie, the niece of my constituent, Deborah Pearson, was killed—murdered—by her ex-partner in Eilat in Israel at the end of 2015. I have raised this with the Foreign Secretary’s predecessors, but we are no further forward. We now know that the police were called five times, but they palmed her off, saying that she was a nuisance. She had 78 bruises on her body, and lost over a litre of blood. Will he meet me so that we can get justice for Julie and Deborah, my constituent?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that case. Obviously, our hearts go out to her constituent’s family over a truly terrible incident. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Asia and the Pacific is very, very happy to meet her and make sure that we are doing everything that we can.

Emily Thornberry: May I join you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming our distinguished and learned visitor, Gareth Evans, who continues to make a vital contribution, as he has throughout his career, to the concept of the rules-based world order? On that subject, we must note that it is six months to the day since Jamal Khashoggi was brutally murdered by Saudi agents in their embassy in Istanbul. The greatest tribute that we can pay to him today is not to look back at his death but to look at the murder of innocent children in Yemen whose lives he tried to save with his journalism and which matter just as much as his did.
I realise that I have not asked a question, so let me say this. In that light, what possible justification can the Foreign Secretary offer for the Saudi air strike last week on the Save the Children-supported hospital in Kitaf, which was clearly marked on the Saudi no-strike list? The strike killed three adults and four children, including an innocent child aged just eight years?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me tell my opposite number that that is exactly why we are doing everything that we possibly can to try to create peace in Yemen. It is why I am the first western Foreign Minister to meet the Houthi side, even though they were the ones that were the cause of the conflict when it began four years ago. I am the first  western Foreign Minister to visit Yemen to see where we could progress the Stockholm accords. I am not prepared to let Labour pose as the great humanitarians, as their foreign policy is to support an evil regime in Venezuela that stops its own people accessing food and medicine—it just does not work.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: We need to speed up, because progress is slow.

Emily Thornberry: Does the Foreign Secretary understand the frustration we feel in this House when time and again over the last four years, including on Jamal Khashoggi, we get the same response from the Government? They regret what happened, they want a proper investigation by the Saudis, they promise real consequences and nothing ever happens. There is no investigation, there are no consequences and bin Salman carries on with complete impunity.
I ask the Foreign Secretary yet again what it will take for this Government finally to tell bin Salman that he cannot keep getting away with murder.

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Lady just is not reflecting what has happened. Thanks to action by this Government and other Governments, a judicial process started in Saudi Arabia on 3 January and we are sending observers. We have a UN special rapporteur, Agnes Callamard, who is responsible for looking at extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and she is leading an independent international inquiry.
When I became Foreign Secretary—the right hon. Lady was shadow Foreign Secretary then, too—we did not have a peace process in Yemen, and now we do, which is thanks to the UK and the huge diplomatic effort we have been making.

Venezuela

Alec Shelbrooke: What discussions he has had with the Lima group on the political and security situation in Venezuela.

Mark Menzies: What discussions he has had with the Lima group on the political and security situation in Venezuela.

Alan Duncan: On 4 February, I attended a Lima group meeting in Ottawa at the invitation of the Canadian Foreign Minister. At the meeting I spoke to the Foreign Ministers of Colombia and Brazil about the crisis in Venezuela. I have also spoken recently to Chilean Foreign Minister Ampuero and Peruvian Vice-Foreign Minister de Zela. We continue to work closely with the Lima group, the Organisation of American States, the United States and like-minded European and international partners to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in Venezuela.

Alec Shelbrooke: The Labour party and its leadership have an unforgivable record of defending the Maduro regime, which is so toxic that people have started leaving the party. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that this Government condemn the human rights abuses and the regression of democracy, and will continue to  promote freedom and democracy and offer support to surrounding countries that are dealing with the refugee crisis as a direct result of this abhorrent regime?

Alan Duncan: I can give assurance to my hon. Friend on all those things. We are working closely with all international partners to find a resolution to the fact that the Maduro regime has completely bankrupted his country and made it destitute to the point where 3.6 million people have fled to neighbouring countries.

Mark Menzies: Throughout my visits to the region, it has become abundantly clear that the humanitarian situation in Venezuela is having a huge impact across Latin America. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to address the consequences of the continued political humanitarian abuse?

Alan Duncan: May I first congratulate my hon. Friend on all his work in the region as an effective trade envoy? He has built up some very good relationships to our benefit.
We are, of course, working with the Department for International Development to deliver a humanitarian aid package of over £6.5 million, on top of the multilateral activity to which we always contribute in such a significant way.

Conor McGinn: In its declaration last month, the Lima group called on the UN high commissioner for human rights to publish a report on human rights abuses in Venezuela. Can the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with the United Nations about this? Although the UN has been vociferous about the impact of sanctions on the regime, it has been strangely silent on the curtailment of the freedom of the press and other human rights abuses in Venezuela.

Alan Duncan: I am delighted to hear an Opposition Member raise the topics of the abuse of human rights and freedom, on which we have been speaking very loudly and on which we are working very deeply with the Lima group. The fundamental issue is Venezuela’s poverty. People cannot get basic goods, and the fact that President Maduro is blocking aid from getting into his own country is so contemptible that, on both sides of the House, we should all speak with one voice in condemning it.

Gregory Campbell: Given the continuing humanitarian and political crisis in Venezuela, does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that both the Lima group and other Government agencies in both North America and South America additionally press President Maduro to ensure that food supplies are delivered to the people of Venezuela?

Alan Duncan: Yes, indeed. All countries across the world have to do their bit. Canada and the European Union international contact group are doing a lot. We all have to work together, and one of the most concerning developments at the moment is that President Maduro is trying to strip Juan Guaidó of the immunity he enjoys as a member of the National Assembly. We in this House should send out a very clear message today that that would be utterly unacceptable and that Juan Guaidó is the interim President we recognise.

Colombia Peace Process

Chris Matheson: What assessment he has made of the progress on the Colombia peace process.

Alan Duncan: Since 2016, Colombia has made significant progress in its peace process; the FARC is now a political party and the last elections were the safest in decades. I reaffirmed our full support for the peace process with the Colombian Foreign Minister on 4 February in Ottawa. The UK has expressed concern to the Colombian Government over delays in the transitional justice system, which is a critical part of the peace process. We continue to support the process through the conflict stability and security fund.

Chris Matheson: I understand that there were a couple more paramilitary killings last week. Did the Minister read the report by Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur, who has said that the national landscape continues to be plagued by violence, particularly gender-based violence? Will the Minister put the problem of the continuing structural gender-based violence in Colombia on the agenda for the November conference on the preventing sexual violence initiative?

Alan Duncan: Yes, I certainly will, because preventing sexual violence against women is one of the UK’s human rights priorities in Colombia. Indeed, Foreign Office officials recently met the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) to discuss that. I hope that illustrates once again the extent to which we are really working together across the House to tackle these vexed problems at all levels, in every way we can.

Diplomatic Relations: Saudi Arabia

Emma Lewell-Buck: What recent assessment he has made of the strength of the UK’s diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia.

Jeremy Hunt: I visited Saudi Arabia most recently on 2 March. We have a long history of close co-operation in support of regional stability, alongside frank conversations on areas of concern, including human rights.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. A UN human rights expert has said that the court proceedings relating to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi have been secret and fall short of international standards, and it was reported only today that Saudi Arabia is paying his family so that they continue to show restraint in their public statements. Can the Foreign Secretary update us on any conclusions that he has reached from the promised credible investigation into the murder?

Jeremy Hunt: I can assure the hon. Lady that we have been clear from the outset that what happened to Khashoggi was fundamentally against our values, and that there has to be full accountability and a transparent judicial process that meets international standards. That process  has started and we continue to monitor it; we are sending observers to see what happens in the trial process. We continue to exercise our strong views on the issue, in private and in public.

Paul Williams: Leaked medical reports published in last weekend showed that Saudi political prisoners have been subjected to torture, some are malnourished and others have been denied access to medical care. Are the Government silent on this?

Jeremy Hunt: Absolutely not. I raised the issue of detained women campaigners when I was recently in Saudi Arabia, and the Prime Minister has raised the case of Raif Badawi, the blogger who was sentenced to 1,000 lashes. The interesting thing about the report, if it is true, is that it was commissioned by the King, who wants to understand what is going on in the prisons, to ensure that they meet international standards of humanitarian justice.

Ann Clwyd: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that in the past week three women human rights activists have been released conditionally on bail in Saudi Arabia? What are the Government doing to press for the release and discharge of other women in prison?

Jeremy Hunt: I had not heard that report, but it would be excellent news. I can reassure the hon. Lady that I raised the issue when I met the Saudi Foreign Minister on my recent visit. We have asked to have access to the trials, but that has been denied. We continue to follow the case very carefully and press it at every opportunity.

Middle East

Guto Bebb: What assessment he has made of the diplomatic implications of rocket fire from Gaza towards Tel Aviv.

Mark Field: We are concerned by the recent violence in Israel and Gaza, and we welcome the Egyptian efforts to de-escalate the situation. At the UN Security Council on 26 March, the UK condemned the rocket attacks, which injured two British-Israeli citizens. We regret the loss of life, including the death of four children in protests over the weekend—mercifully, fears of major violence were not realised. Our diplomats in the region urge all parties to continue to demonstrate restraint in the tense days that lie ahead.

Guto Bebb: I thank the Minister for his response and associate myself with his comments. Last month, more than 60 rockets were fired from Gaza towards Israel. Two were intercepted above Tel Aviv, while another destroyed a residence in central Israel that was occupied by a British-Israeli family, resulting in injuries, including an injury to a six-month-old baby. What steps are the Government taking to support our ally, Israel, as it fights this terrorist attack on the country?

Mark Field: I think we all recognise that Israel is an important strategic partner for the United Kingdom and that we need to collaborate actively on issues of  defence, security and intelligence. In October 2018, the Government launched the UK-Israel counter-terrorism dialogue to share best practice and insights on a wide range of capabilities. We are now committed to holding such a dialogue annually, which will help to complement the already strong operational relationship between our countries.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Two weeks ago at the United Nations Human Rights Council, the UK abstained on a motion to support the accountability of violations of international law in the occupied Palestinian territories. Since then, another Palestinian health worker, Sajid Muzher, has been shot and killed by Israeli forces—the fourth in just this year. Does the Minister agree that the killing of Palestinian medics is fuelled by the impunity that results from countries not voting at the UNHRC? Will we use our vote in future?

Mark Field: There are two issues at stake, so I shall go into some detail, if I may. We abstained on that UNHRC resolution calling for an inquiry on the basis that the substance of such a resolution must be impartial and balanced. We could not support such an investigation when the resolution refused explicitly to call for an investigation into non-state actors such as Hamas. I should also say—this relates to the hon. Gentleman’s Question 21—that we have stressed and will continue to stress the importance of protecting and delivering medical services, particularly in Gaza. As recently as 28 March, the Department for International Development announced a new £2 million package for the International Committee of the Red Cross, which will contribute to the delivery of urgently needed supplies.

Bob Blackman: What action has my right hon. Friend taken, given that Hamas is organising for women and children to go to the border between Gaza and Israel and therefore provoking violent confrontations?

Mark Field: Clearly, we want to try to avoid violent confrontation at all costs. As I said in my earlier answer, mercifully, the major concerns about violence at the protests this weekend, which we felt could have been a lot more serious than they were, were not realised. My hon. Friend will recognise that we do all we can on the ground to try to defuse some of the tensions. That is an important part of our diplomatic work, which we do with other countries as well, of course.

Joan Ryan: I utterly condemn the latest rocket attacks that the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) raised. We know that Hamas is given tens of millions of dollars a year by Iran to fund these terrorist acts. What steps are the Government taking to stop the Iranian regime funding barbaric middle east terror groups such as Hamas?

Mark Field: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. She will recognise that Hamas is one of a number of Iranian proxies in the region. Our position is that Hamas must renounce violence, recognise Israel and accept previously agreed and signed agreements. We condemn Hamas and other terrorist groups for firing rockets into Israel from not only Gaza but elsewhere, in  the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). Those groups must permanently end such attacks against both civilians and defence forces.

Overseas Soft Power

Alan Mak: What steps he is taking to enhance UK soft power overseas.

Craig Mackinlay: What steps he is taking to enhance UK soft power overseas.

Mark Field: We regard the UK as a soft power superpower, and this is widely recognised in independent international surveys and reports. [Interruption.] A few more tongue twisters and I will be anyone’s! This is the sort of thing you want to do at 11 in the morning, not 11 o’clock at night. The FCO vigorously continues to support the UK’s soft power through the funding of, among others, Chevening scholarships, the British Council and the BBC World Service.

Alan Mak: The Commonwealth is one of the driving forces of UK soft power around the world. What plans does my right hon. Friend’s Department have in place to capitalise on these relationships to improve our power and security?

Mark Field: My hon. Friend is absolutely right  that the UK has an unbreakable connection to the Commonwealth and the democratic, inclusive values that it upholds—we discussed earlier the importance of maintaining a rules-based international order, particularly in these uncertain times. The Commonwealth also proudly represents some of the fastest-growing economies and accounts for one fifth of global trade. We shall of course continue to work closely with all members of the Commonwealth to ensure that it realises its full potential in that regard, and to ensure a more sustainable, prosperous and secure future.

Craig Mackinlay: Royal Yacht Britannia played a key role in promoting UK trade around the globe during her years of active service. More than 50 Members of this House believe that such a role would be enhanced post Brexit and that a new national yacht would help to promote our international humanitarian role. Will the Government now support our campaign in this brave endeavour?

Mark Field: I fear that I may have to disappoint my hon. Friend, who represents a coastal constituency. As a regular visitor to Broadstairs in his constituency,  I know what a wonderful part of the country it is, but I have to inform him that there are no plans to commission a new royal yacht for the royal family.

Barry Sheerman: Can we include in soft power the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union? Will the Minister help us to breathe life into those organisations so that we can get meaningful dialogue on the issues that really worry us, such as the rights of  Christians, including the persecution of Christians in Pakistan? Why are we not having that sort of debate here?

Mark Field: I say to the hon. Gentleman that, with regard to the CPA and the IPU, we do. I appreciate that, for many Members who wish to get more engaged, travelling is obviously difficult because of the nature of the electoral arithmetic at the moment. May I also point out the incredibly hard work that goes on at the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, particularly with regard to getting constitutional change in many parts of the world? Many of those programmes are done on a cross-party basis, which provides a very positive stance for UK democracy abroad and will, hopefully, enhance aspects of the soft power to which he refers.

Stephen Gethins: Can the Minister tell us what impact Brexit has had on the UK’s reputation, and whether a no-deal Brexit will be better or worse for that reputation?

Mark Field: Ironically, a recent UN report showed the UK rising up the happiness league, but I appreciate that some of these surveys cannot be relied on too much. On a serious note, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and it is a concern for all of us as Foreign Office Ministers who work abroad. It is very easy for us in this country to be a little bit self-deprecating about Britain and its brand abroad, but I am always very struck—certainly in Asia and the Pacific, and, with my new responsibilities, in the middle east—by just how respected the UK and its brand are. Those countries recognise that there are some uncertainties at the moment, but that view will continue.

Stephen Gethins: I am glad that the Minister recognises the challenges, but as he might have said in “Jaws”, “You’re going to need a bigger yacht.” We have heard Pascal Lamy talk about the UK’s reputation being much diminished and Jürgen Maier from Siemens talk about the country’s tremendous reputation as an economic powerhouse being wrecked. We need to address that, as it is not good for any of us. Will the Minister recognise that before this Government take us down the route of a disastrous no deal?

Mark Field: It is incumbent on all of us not to talk the country down in what we appreciate are difficult times. We want to see progress—significant progress—in this regard. I am struck by the fact that we are experiencing slightly hyperbolic, frenzied activity in this House and, dare I say it, among some commentators. As I have said, what I see on the ground is that we have been respected for many, many decades and that a huge amount of work goes on, not least in the soft power area. I am sure that that will go from strength to strength in the years to come.

Khalid Mahmood: Lord Ricketts, the former head of the Foreign Office and an expert of soft power, said last month:
“The Foreign Secretary is making a big mistake if he thinks this…blame game over Brexit is going to change any minds in Europe.”
Does the Government accept that Lord Ricketts is right, and that the only ones responsible for this Brexit mess are this Government alone?

Mark Field: I had a chance to speak directly with Lord Ricketts in a radio studio a week ago. He recognises, I think, the difficulties that we face in dealing with the Brexit negotiations. I have been out not just to Brussels, but to the OECD in Paris recently. Again, I was very struck, as I worked with counterparts, by the fact that there is an important agenda, and that many European countries recognise the importance of the UK. We need to have the strongest of relationships. Clearly there are uncertainties about the precise nature of our departure from the European Union, but that is a part of it.

Hugo Swire: Will my right hon. Friend commit to speaking with his other partners in the Government to try to obtain more funding for the GREAT campaign, which plays an extraordinarily important role in promoting the UK—and our products and companies—globally?

Mark Field: The GREAT campaign is a fantastic success. Part of my role is to deal with communications, representing the Foreign Office on a cross-departmental basis. We recognise the importance of this particular campaign and work strongly on it, particularly with the Department for International Trade.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: We are late, but if colleagues were in a caring, sharing mood, and were prepared to consider each other, we could get through a little more.

Catalonia

Marion Fellows: If he will take steps to promote human rights and self-determination for Catalonia in Spain.

Alan Duncan: Thank you so much, Mr Speaker; I am ever grateful.
As I have previously made clear to the House, the situation in Catalonia is a matter for Spain. We remain clear that questions related to the issue of Catalan independence should be resolved within the proper constitutional and legal channels of Spain.

Marion Fellows: It is everyone’s responsibility—including this Government’s—to uphold human rights. Far from becoming the major global player that Brexiteers imagine, the UK appears more and more irrelevant on the world stage. Is it the case that the UK Government are not seeking to uphold self-determination for Catalonia because they need Spain’s help in further Brexit negotiations?

Alan Duncan: No, it is because we uphold the rule of law, as we have discussed earlier in questions. We uphold the rule of law here with Scotland and we uphold it in Spain with regards to Catalonia. Certain accusations that Spain somehow has political prisoners are absurd. It does not have political prisoners; it has prisoners who happen to be political.

Richard Graham: rose—

John Bercow: A sentence, Mr Graham.

Richard Graham: Tolerance of people of different faiths and sexualities is incredibly important for the promotion of human rights. Does my right hon. Friend therefore share the disappointment of many that tomorrow the kingdom of Brunei—a key Commonwealth partner and long-term ally of the UK—is introducing the death penalty for homosexuality?

John Bercow: No, no, no—sit down. The question is about Catalonia. [Interruption.] Well, I have been advised, and I am afraid that the question did not strike me as in order. We must move on. The hon. Gentleman can try again later.

Lebanon

Bob Stewart: What recent diplomatic steps he has taken to help ensure a secure and stable Government in Lebanon.

Mark Field: The UK remains fully committed to helping to promote Lebanon’s security and stability. The Prime Minister conveyed that message to Prime Minister Hariri as recently as 24 February. We provide direct support to Lebanon of over $200 million a year. These funds help to secure borders, to provide the opportunity of education and to strengthen service delivery.

Bob Stewart: What specific security assistance are Her Majesty’s Government providing on the borders of Lebanon?

Mark Field: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, as I know he takes these matters extremely seriously. We have invested more than £60 million in Lebanese security since 2012. By 2020, we shall have trained over 11,000 soldiers in specialist and essential infantry skills and techniques for urban and rural security operations across the board. This assistance includes significant support for the land border regiments, and has helped to secure Lebanon’s border with Syria for the first time in its history.

Jim Shannon: Some 1.25 million Christians have fled Syria to go to Lebanon. Will the Minister confirm what help he has been able to give to those Christian refugees?

Mark Field: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes these matters extremely seriously, and the House much respects him for that. Many of those refugees, and some Palestinian Christians, have been in Lebanon in waves going back 20 or 30 years. Obviously, a huge amount of Department for International Development work goes on in the area. We recognise that many people have been there for quite some time and will be there for quite some time to come, and we therefore try to enhance their economic opportunities. The UK has played a leading part in trying to ensure tariff-free access to EU markets for many of those individuals.

Lesotho

Ian Lucas: If he will make an assessment of the level of democratic governance in Lesotho.

Harriett Baldwin: Lesotho continues to experience political fragility and democratic and development challenges. Together with the Southern African Development Community, we are working to support the implementation of governance reforms.

Ian Lucas: Prime Minister Tom Thabane and Minister John Maseribane both admitted to Channel 4 News that they had received payments into their personal bank accounts from Mr Arron Banks. Will the Minister meet me to discuss governance in Lesotho, its current position in the Commonwealth and the advice that she is giving to British companies operating in Lesotho about the Bribery Act 2010?

Harriett Baldwin: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question, and the strong links that exist between people in Wales and people in Lesotho. Of course, I am always delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman. Regarding the allegations made on Channel 4, we urge anyone with evidence to give it to the appropriate authorities.

Topical Questions

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: I start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who stepped down last week. He served twice as Minister for the Middle East and was immensely respected and liked both in the Foreign Office, which does not happen with all Ministers, and in this House for his integrity, wisdom and kindness.
Tomorrow marks the third anniversary of the detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Iran. I know that I speak for the whole House in hoping that the Iranian authorities will see beyond the differences between our two countries and allow this innocent woman to come home and join her family.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Today is the 107th day of İmam Sis’s hunger strike. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and I visited him in Newport East this weekend. He is one of 1,000 Kurds on hunger strike around the world, demanding that Abdullah Öcalan is allowed access to his lawyer and removed from solitary confinement. Turkey is a NATO member and has the highest number of MPs and journalists in prison in the world, following—

John Bercow: Order. I am sorry, but this is an abuse of the House. What we want is a one-sentence question with a question mark at the end of it. Lots of other colleagues want to take part. One question, Mr Russell-Moyle.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Has the Foreign Secretary raised the matter with Turkey, and will he send representations to the Council of Europe following the Welsh Assembly’s resolution?

John Bercow: Excellent. Thank you.

Jeremy Hunt: I am very happy to look into the case in detail for the hon. Gentleman. Turkey may be a NATO ally and an important friend of the United Kingdom, but that does not prevent us from raising important human rights issues.

James Cleverly: What assessment has the Department made of the validity or otherwise of accusations of vote rigging in the recent Nigerian elections? Further to that, what support will be given to ensure the integrity and independence of the judiciary in Nigeria and the upholding of the rule of law?

Harriett Baldwin: The UK was one of the funders of what is known as a parallel voter tabulation exercise, which is like an extensive BBC exit poll. It gave a result that was consistent with the officially declared results, and our Prime Minister called President Buhari to congratulate him on his re-election. However, we are aware of various reports from both our observers and others, and a strong stance against election-related violence was taken yesterday in my meetings with Nigerian opposition leaders, where I emphasised that concerns must be taken through the judicial process and that the independence of the judiciary in Nigeria is incredibly important.

Fabian Hamilton: As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said in respect of Cameroon, if Brunei does not abandon its barbaric proposals to whip or stone LGBT+ individuals to death, will the Minister of State guarantee that the Government will ask their counterparts on the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group to consider Brunei’s immediate suspension?

Mark Field: I raised with the Bruneian Government my concerns over the introduction of the hudud punishment most recently in a letter to the deputy Foreign Minister on Friday 29 March, and I discussed the imminent introduction of the Sharia penal code when I was in Brunei last August. Our high commissioner Richard Lindsay in Bandar Seri Begawan has also received assurances that both common law and the sharia penal code will operate in parallel for all nationals and residents, including British citizens, and be the primary means of administering justice in Brunei. We will continue to lobby to ensure that any British citizens in Brunei will be subject to common law rather than the penal code.

Theresa Villiers: I thank the Government for securing United Nations Human Rights Council resolution 34/1 on Sri Lanka, but do Ministers share my grave disappointment that, 10 years after the horrors of Mullivaikkal, no one has been brought to justice for war crimes in the Sri Lankan conflict?

Mark Field: I reiterate the earlier comments of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We welcome Sri Lanka’s co-sponsorship of a new resolution of the UNHRC in March, which continues its reconciliation and accountability commitments. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend speaks for many of her constituents who come from the Tamil part of Sri Lanka. As a penholder, the UK has played a leading role in   trying to bring the parties together, but while we accept that positive steps have been taken, much faster progress is needed. We shall continue to urge Sri Lanka to implement fully its commitments under UNHRC resolutions 30/1 and 34/1.

Toby Perkins: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Foreign Secretary has spoken about the pernicious role of the Iranian Government in various disputes around the middle east, not least in support of the Houthis in Yemen. What more can he tell us about what Britain is doing alongside his counterparts around the world to put serious pressure on the Iranians, not only on human rights abuses in their own country but on the appalling role they play right across the middle east?

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman is right; Iran’s human rights record remains a matter of serious concern. On 17 December, the UK co-sponsored a UN resolution on human rights in Iran, highlighting its failure to meet a whole range of international obligations in that area.

Neil Parish: Newly elected President Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe is not restoring good governance and human rights or rooting out corruption in the country. What more can we do as a soft power superpower to ensure that the Zimbabwean Government root out corruption, recognise human rights and bring in inward investment, to return prosperity to that great country?

Harriett Baldwin: I welcome my hon. Friend’s question and reassure him that we are doing everything we can. We summoned the Zimbabwean ambassador to the UK to register our concerns about the human rights violations and abuses that were noted in the January fuel protests. I travelled to southern Africa and met a range of neighbours to encourage them to send the same message as Commonwealth countries to the Government of Zimbabwe. If the Government of Zimbabwe would only follow through with the things they have said they will do, we would not be in this situation.

Barry Sheerman: Will the Secretary of State consider hosting a major conference on the rights of women? Is he not disturbed by the reports of rape being used worldwide against women as a punitive measure? It is scandalous, and the lion woman’s brave avenging of the rape of her daughter should be celebrated—cautiously, of course. Can we have an international conference on the rights of women?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes we can, and indeed we will. This November, we will host a major conference on the prevention of sexual violence as a tool of conflict. I have met Nadia Murad and Dr Denis Mukwege, the Nobel peace prize winners who have campaigned on this issue. Whether it is Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq or Burma, we are clear that this has to become an international taboo.

Philip Dunne: What advice would my right hon. Friend give to those on the Opposition Benches, and particularly on the Opposition  Front Bench, who regard the regime in Venezuela as a leading exemplar of government, despite its sending 2 million refugees into Colombia, putting up roadblocks to prevent aid from coming into the country and inviting in Russian troops to keep the peace?

Jeremy Hunt: I would say to them that the shadow Chancellor was absolutely right when he said that Venezuela was “socialism in action”.

Jim Cunningham: This year marks the 10th anniversary of the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka. What is the Minister doing to promote the civil rights of Tamils in Sri Lanka?

Mark Field: If I may, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). We are doing a lot, as a penholder, and playing a leading role in trying to bring parties together. We are pleased to see that Sri Lanka is co-sponsoring a new resolution at the Human Rights Council in March in Geneva, but I appreciate that we need to see some genuine progress, and I very much hope that the international community can come together and bring that about.

Greg Hands: I know that the Foreign Secretary and I will both welcome the House’s decision last night to reject an EU customs union. What assessment has he made of the foreign policy implications of such an arrangement, were it ever entered into?

Jeremy Hunt: I think people would see it as very curious that a country that voted to take back control was choosing to cede control in a number of areas of vital national interest. I think they would also be concerned that it would not resolve the national debate on Brexit, because many of the people who voted for Brexit would not see this as delivering a true Brexit.

Paul Sweeney: Will the Secretary of State recognise the incredible action by thousands of young people across our country in striking for action on climate change? Will he not only recognise that we are facing a global emergency on climate change, but declare a national emergency on climate change, just as the Labour party has done?

Jeremy Hunt: I welcome very much young people being involved in climate change issues; I do not welcome quite so much their missing school to do so. I would say that we are making a lot of progress in this country—in fact, I think we have done more than anyone else in the G20 on climate change—but it is not enough. As a global community, we still need to do more, which is why we want to host COP 26 and galvanise the world to take more action.

John Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, already, another seven journalists have been killed in the course of their work this year, coming on top of the 80 who died last year? Two of those were in Mexico, which is one of the deadliest countries in the world for journalism. Will he say what more can be done to press the Mexican Government to take action?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue, and indeed for raising it consistently. He is absolutely right: Mexico is the most dangerous country in the world in which to be a journalist. The Mexican Government have taken action, and we are in touch with them closely about what they are doing. However, we need to draw the world’s attention to this issue. According to the latest figures I have seen, 348 journalists were arrested or detained last year for doing their job. That is why this summer, jointly with Canada, we will be hosting the first ever international conference on media freedom at ministerial level.

Luke Pollard: What steps is the Foreign Office taking to guarantee the human rights of people in Sudan, especially since the President declared a year-long crisis in Sudan?

Harriett Baldwin: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to raise this, because it is a very serious situation, and we are engaging strongly with the Government of Sudan on the issues he raises. Most recently, I had a phone call with the Foreign Minister of Sudan in which I particularly drew attention to the women who were due to be flogged. I am very pleased to hear that they have subsequently been released.

Crispin Blunt: Tomorrow, Brunei introduces a penal code that includes death for apostasy, death for adultery and stoning to death for homosexuality. I suppose at this point I should declare my interest on all three counts. Very much more seriously, what are we going to do with our super soft power to make it clear just how much this is a total violation of the standards we should share?

Mark Field: We have made and will continue to make representations. Obviously there are grave concerns about the nature of the sharia penal code, if it were brought into play. As I mentioned earlier, we are raising concerns about the introduction of the hudud punishment. We have a strong bilateral relationship—underpinned of course by our military presence in Brunei, as my hon. Friend will be aware—and we hope that will mitigate the potential impact of the sharia penal code on UK forces, associated civilians and their dependants.

Emma Reynolds: What pressure can the Foreign Secretary bring to bear on the Indian Government to ensure that UK nationals in prison there have their human right to a fair trial respected? The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) has been a powerful advocate for Jagtar Singh Johal. I have a similar case of an elderly constituent who has been in prison since 2015, and his family are seriously concerned about his health.

Mark Field: I accept that the time for which the legal process drags on in many Indian consular cases is hugely frustrating. I am obviously very happy to meet the hon. Lady in relation to this particular case.
If I may, in relation to the Jagtar Singh Johal case, let me say that I know it has been an incredibly distressing for Mr Johal and his family. I very much respect the hard work of the constituency Member of Parliament. As the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) knows, we have met the family on  three occasions since he Mr Johal imprisoned at the beginning of 2018. The hon. Gentleman is going to meet the Foreign Secretary on 24 April.

Andrew Mitchell: This Sunday is the 25th anniversary of the terrible genocide that took place in Rwanda, a country my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary knows well. The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), the noble Lord Popat and I will be at the ceremonies on Sunday in Kigali, representing our Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend think that the UN doctrine of the responsibility to protect—R2P—which has been so well developed by Gareth Evans, is yet sufficient to ensure that such terrible events could never take place again?

John Bercow: I hope the greatness of Gareth can be properly celebrated in the Chamber today.

Harriett Baldwin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. I hope to join him in Kigali this Sunday as the UK Government representative. The world can never forget the events in Rwanda 25 years ago. The world has made progress in vowing to say never again to genocide, but we must remain alert and engaged in order to prevent such incidents from happening ever again.

Patrick Grady: How does ignoring or dismissing the International Court of Justice ruling on the Chagos islands enhance the United Kingdom’s reputation as a soft power superpower or uphold the international rules-based order?

Alan Duncan: First, it was not a ruling; it was an intermediate decision and non-binding. We are of course in discussions with Mauritius, but we fully uphold our right to take the position we have taken over many years.[Official Report, 3 April 2019, Vol. 657, c. 8MC.]

Fiona Bruce: The UK has a duty to prevent under the genocide convention. Mass atrocities are invariably preceded by red flags. Early warning signs, such as the persecution of minorities, happened in Burma against the Rohingya and, indeed, in Rwanda. What is the FCO doing to help identify and act on such red flags?

Jeremy Hunt: We are doing lots, but the most important thing that we have to do is make sure that when there has been genocide or alleged genocide, there is  accountability. Burma is a case in point, and we hosted a major meeting on that very issue at the UN General Assembly. If there is no accountability, people think they have a chance to get away with doing it again, and that must not happen.

Jo Swinson: Further to the earlier answers on Brunei, we are talking about people being stoned to death for being gay—having rocks thrown at their heads again and again to draw out the process of death by blunt trauma. Surely the Minister agrees that that is barbaric, inhumane and contrary to Commonwealth values. How can the Government reverse this appalling state of affairs?

Mark Field: As I have pointed out, the Sultan of Brunei has become more religious as he has grown older, and that is one of the reasons why he wanted to bring in the sharia penal code. I was out there last August and it was very clear to me, from speaking to him and his advisers, that they envisaged that the common law stream would continue as well. I appreciate that the headlines cause concern. I have written to their representative here in the UK and made it very clear to them that this was going to cause massive parliamentary and media concern, which obviously has come to pass over the past couple of days. Our excellent high commissioner to Brunei, Richard Lindsay, is, on a day-to-day basis, making clear those grave concerns, which have also been expressed during the course of this morning’s questions.

Robert Courts: The 70th anniversary of NATO falls on Thursday. What message does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have for member states with regard to strengthening this alliance, which has done so much to keep peace over so many years?

Jeremy Hunt: NATO has, I think, been the most successful military alliance ever, and it is the foundation of our rules-based international order. My message is very simple: we must not be complacent for the future, and there is a fundamental imbalance when one half of the alliance is spending 4% of its GDP on defence and the other half—the European side—is spending between 1% and 2%.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Thank you, colleagues. I am grateful to all who took part, but we must move on. Demand, as usual, massively exceeds supply.

POINTS OF ORDER

Patricia Gibson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I gave you advance notice that I wished to raise this matter. I had a smear perpetrated against me when a snapshot of frozen film footage was printed in a tabloid paper, The Scottish Sun, suggesting that I was asleep during proceedings in this House. I contacted the journalist concerned, who had not shown the courtesy of contacting me before publishing this piece, to inform him that the film of the proceedings demonstrated categorically that I was not asleep but had for a second or two thrown my head back, appealing to the heavens in despair at chuntering in the Chamber while one of my colleagues was speaking.
As a result of this misleading article, I faced an outpouring of personal abuse against me over the weekend—and it continues—with words like “whore”, “bitch” and “lazy cow” being liberally sprinkled through messages, particularly on The Scottish Sun Facebook page. Those remarks are still online; they have not been removed, as far as I am aware.
Comments on a site in my own constituency—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, this is a matter of great importance.

John Bercow: Order. I absolutely accept the importance of the matter, and it is for that reason that I am very happy to hear the hon. Lady’s point of order, but, with the very greatest of respect, I will be the judge of how long a point of order lasts. Everything said in this Chamber is important. It is not for her to presume that she has as long as she wants. There are a lot of other colleagues who wish to speak and a lot of other matters to be debated. I am extremely sympathetic to her, and I already have in mind a very sympathetic response, but please do not say to me, “It is important,” meaning that you can go on for as long as you like. The answer to that, I am afraid, is no.

Patricia Gibson: The point I wish to make, Mr Speaker, is that this story—if it can be called that—was printed in an atmosphere of febrile political tension, when MPs’ security is a matter of great concern. It has been reposted, and the comments online continue to sit. This is a matter of importance to us all, as an attack on one MP going about her duties—a false one at that—is an attack on us all. Whipping up hatred against any one of us plays into the narrative that we are not real people and can be attacked.

John Bercow: Order. I am sorry, but I must ask the hon. Lady upon what she is seeking an adjudication from the Chair. I cannot just have a speech on the subject. I will not have it. If she wants to ask me something in a sentence, I will respond, and if she wants an Adjournment debate on the subject, I can happily afford her that, but I am not having a speech now. It is not happening.

Patricia Gibson: Given that these posts continue, Mr Speaker, to be available on that publication’s social media platforms and continue to perpetrate that untruth and given that the evidence shows otherwise, what course of action do you suggest I take to seek an end to  this apparent campaign to perpetrate a dishonesty, and stop the tidal wave of abuse that has been unleashed, which is an attack on us all?

John Bercow: First, I thank the hon. Lady for raising the matter and giving me advance notice of her intention to do so. I underline and reinforce her concern. It is indeed an extremely serious matter—not just for her personally, but for all colleagues and, institutionally, for the House of Commons. False allegations against Members should not be allowed to gain traction. It affects us all and the reputation of the House if such allegations are not robustly refuted. To be fair, she has just robustly refuted the allegation. Her concern would be serious at any time, but it is a particular concern in what I think she described as the current febrile political atmosphere. She has put her view on the matter very clearly on the record. If she considers that the allegations made against her might conceivably constitute a contempt of the House, she should write to me setting out the facts, and I will adjudicate upon that. That is the first answer.
The second answer to the hon. Lady is that, if she wishes to stage an Adjournment debate on such abuse, of which this is an example, but there are many others, she might find that a friendly Chair will facilitate an Adjournment debate for her, possibly of up to an hour and a half, in which other colleagues could take part and in which she would have a full opportunity to make such speech as she judged necessary. Thirdly, my advice to the hon. Lady in the short term is that she should get her hands on a copy of the Official Report of today’s proceedings without delay—I am sure she will do so—and ensure that it is circulated to all the outlets responsible for propagating this slur upon her good name.
Fourthly, I say to the hon. Lady in terms that leave no scope for misunderstanding that I have a good vantage point in the Chair—I say that to all Members and those observing our proceedings—and I have never in my time in the Chair observing her seen her fall asleep.
She is a veritable parliamentary Zebedee—she is constantly jumping up and down—and that, as she knows, is a compliment, not an insult. She is one of the most alert Members of Parliament. She is one of the most assiduous Chamber attendees and participants. She is without blemish, in so far as her parliamentary commitment is concerned.
I will let her into a secret. I was once—not in this Chamber—watching a tennis match at Wimbledon. It was one of the most exciting matches that I have ever watched. Momentarily, I closed my eyes, not because I had fallen asleep or had drunk alcohol, because neither of those things was true—I had momentarily closed my eyes in sheer suspense. The camera caught me and the next day it was suggested in a newspaper that perhaps I had fallen asleep. As the hon. Lady knows, the notion that I would fall asleep watching a tennis match is just inherently absurd.
I do not treat this with levity. It is extremely serious, but as far as I am concerned, it is monstrous and ridiculous, and she should circulate the Official Report, which testifies to the Chair’s view of the matter. I have a better idea than those other commentators for the very simple reason that I observe Members every day from the Chair, and she would not fall asleep—amen, end of subject, period.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Minister for Asia and the Pacific said that he wanted to correct me with regard to my question, saying that the UK did not have RAF personnel in Saudi control centres. Last year, the MOD responded to other Members saying that it did and it responded to me saying that it had squadron leaders and lieutenants. It even listed the names of personnel. How do I get the Minister, who has not responded to my letter asking him to correct the record, to come here and correct the record, and state that we do have RAF personnel in Saudi control centres?

John Bercow: As to whether the Minister corrects the record, it is incumbent upon a Minister who thinks that he or she has erred to do so, but it is not incumbent upon me to act as arbiter of whether a correction is required. I am afraid that that must remain a matter for the Minister. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman, by the sedulous use of a bogus point of order, has taken the opportunity to put his own interpretation of matters clearly on the record. If I may say so, he looks mightily relieved to have done so.

Susan Elan Jones: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At yesterday’s hearing of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I asked the Secretary of State for Wales why he had voted differently to some of his Cabinet colleagues on the extension of article 50. He informed me at that hearing that he had abstained because he had been elsewhere and had not been around at the time of the votes. It subsequently transpires that the right hon. Gentleman cast his vote by voting in both Lobbies, thereby abstaining. I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether the Secretary of State has declared any intention to him that he will come to make a personal statement on this matter. If he has not done so, can you offer me any advice on how to proceed and deal with this rather unusual discrepancy?

John Bercow: I have not received any indication from the Secretary of State for Wales that he intends to come to the House to make a statement on that matter. I was not entirely clear whether the hon. Lady was suggesting that the explanation that she had had from the Minister was outside the Chamber or inside it.

Susan Elan Jones: In the Select Committee, Sir.

John Bercow: Oh, it was in the Select Committee. Well, it was in the course of a parliamentary proceeding. I suppose the Secretary of State may think he was elsewhere than being in one Division Lobby, because he was in two Division Lobbies.

Susan Elan Jones: He said he was outside the House.

John Bercow: Oh, very well. If the Minister feels a responsibility to correct the record, he will do so. If not, knowing the eager beaver that the hon. Lady is, I have a feeling that she will be penning a letter and ensuring that it wings its way to the Secretary of State before very long. Whether he will await that letter with enormous enthusiasm is open to doubt.

Bill Cash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance? The next business is the presentation of Bills, and it is to do with the   European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill, which the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will be presenting. Would it be appropriate for me to raise a point of order on it now or after she has presented the Bill?

John Bercow: After. Thank you.

BILL PRESENTED

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Yvette Cooper, supported by Sir Oliver Letwin, Hilary Benn, Dame Caroline Spelman, Jack Dromey, Alison McGovern, Mr Dominic Grieve, Clive Efford, Stephen Doughty, Norman Lamb, Ben Lake and Stewart Hosie, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the period for negotiations for withdrawing from the European Union.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow; and to be printed (Bill 371).

Bill Cash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on something that I raised yesterday in relation to the business motion and my very grave concern, I think shared by many people throughout the country—let alone in the House—about the idea of a Bill that is of such importance as this effectively being rammed through in one day. It is a Bill
“to make provision in connection with the period for negotiations for withdrawing from the European Union.”
In short, this is a reprehensible procedure in the context of the vitally important issue of our leaving the European Union. It is unconstitutional, and it is inconceivable that we should be presented with a Bill that could be rammed through in one day. In making this point of order, I want to ask you whether you have observations on the point that I just made.

John Bercow: My observation is threefold. First, that the hon. Gentleman is of this view was made very clear to me by his oration yesterday. Indeed, I say in no spirit of discourtesy to him that I rather imagine that anybody within a 50-mile radius of this place would be aware of his views on this important matter, given the force and frequency with which he has expressed them. Secondly, the House voted yesterday to give precedence tomorrow to a business of the House motion, which has not yet been tabled, so we await that. Thirdly, although this is of course an unusual state of affairs, it is not unknown for a Bill to be pushed through the House in one day. For a Bill brought forward by a Back-Bench Member, it is very unusual, but it is consequent upon a decision of the House. Bills being brought forward and taken through their various stages in one day in Government time are not particularly unusual at all. For example, Northern Ireland legislation has often been taken through the House on that basis. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not object to that in the way that he objects to this, but I do not think it is as unprecedented as he supposes. It is unusual and it is a bit different from those other examples, and it grates immensely with the hon. Gentleman, but that does not of itself render it disorderly. Upsetting the hon. Gentleman is displeasing but not disorderly. I think we will have to leave it there.

BANKNOTE DIVERSITY

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Helen Grant: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Bank of England to meet standards for the representation of ethnic minority persons on banknotes; and for connected purposes.
I present this Bill because I believe that the Governor of the Bank of England now has a unique opportunity to address an archaic stereotype—one that completely undermines the credible efforts towards diversity and inclusion that are indeed taking place the old lady of Threadneedle Street.
I must first pay tribute to the inspirational Zehra Zaidi and Dr Patrick Vernon OBE for their excellent “Banknotes of Colour” campaign, and I am glad to say that they are sitting in the Gallery today. Their campaign aims to secure the first ever ethnic minority person on a British banknote, and their efforts have already won very broad support both inside and outside the House. The Bill seeks to persuade the Governor of the Bank of England to designate a black, Asian or minority ethnic person to feature on the new £50 note, a decision that he is due to announce this summer. There have been 24 banknotes featuring a notable person on the reverse since the first was issued in July 1970. Of these, all but three have been historic white men, the notable exceptions being three women: Florence Nightingale, Elizabeth Fry and Jane Austen.
As you will know, Mr Speaker, the 2011 UK census showed that 14% of the UK population were from black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds. Like everywhere else around the globe, the UK population will become ever more diverse in the coming decades. We talk so much of cohesion and integration and of active engaged citizens, but for this to be achieved people and communities need to see that their stake in Britain—in its past, present and future—is universally recognised. To include a person of diversity on our banknotes would show a fundamental shift from a national stereotype to a modern, socially inclusive attitude in one of our oldest and most traditional institutions.
Such positive action would underline the pride we have in this country’s great multi-culture and help to defeat the despicable influence of the hatred and division that seeks to destroy our libertarian way of life. The Bank of England has a duty to support and promote integration and diversity. Indeed, its own guidance states that its banknote characters should reflect the diversity of UK society. It is therefore surprising and disappointing that the Bank has so far failed to recognise the ethnic diversity of our population on our national currency. The Bill would change that.
Over the last century, our diverse communities in the UK have undoubtedly made a seismic contribution to the making of modern Britain—in business, in public services, in the NHS and even in politics. There are so many examples: Mary Seacole, the Jamaican-British nurse who supported British troops during the Crimean war and whose contribution has been recognised as equal to that of Florence Nightingale; Noor Inayat Khan, a Muslim of Indian origin, who was the first female radio operator to infiltrate enemy occupied France in world war two; Sophia Duleep Singh, the prominent Indian suffragette and member of the Women’s Social and Political Union; and not forgetting Sir Charles Kao, the British-Chinese scientist who won the Nobel prize for physics and pioneered the use of fibre optics in telecommunications. There are, of course, many other examples, but all these individuals represent the very best of Britain.
The choice of the face of the new £50 note is a wonderful opportunity for the Bank of England. It would send a message from one of the greatest institutions in the land that the contribution of diverse communities to the building of Britain really does matter and is truly valued. In doing so, it would also ensure that the UK’s currency is reflective of the diverse, inclusive and tolerant modern Britain that I know and love.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Helen Grant, Mrs Maria Miller, Janet Daby, Dame Caroline Spelman, Caroline Lucas, Eddie Hughes, Kate Green, Clive Lewis, Jeremy Lefroy, Preet Kaur Gill, Helen Whately and Rachel Maclean present the Bill.
Mrs Helen Grant accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 April, and to be printed (Bill 372).

PRIVILEGES

[Relevant Document: Third Special Report of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Failure of a witness to answer an Order of the Committee: conduct of Mr Dominic Cummings, HC 115.]

John Bercow: The Leader of the House has tabled a motion on a matter of privilege that I have agreed should take precedence today. To move the motion, I call Mr Paul Maynard.

Paul Maynard: I beg to move,
That this House—
(i) approves the First Report from the Committee of Privileges (HC 1490); and
(ii) endorses the conclusions of the Committee in respect of the conduct of Mr Dominic Cummings that the evidence sought by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee from Mr Cummings was relevant to its inquiry and that his refusal to attend constituted a significant interference with the work of that Committee; concludes that Mr Cummings committed a contempt both by his refusal to obey the Committee’s order to attend it and by his subsequent refusal to obey the House’s Order of 7 June 2018; and therefore formally admonishes him for his conduct.
In a week of constitutional innovation, we have one more, whereby I am standing in for the Leader of the House, who sends her apologies. I understand that she has been in touch with the Chairs of the Committee of Privileges and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee to explain the reason for her absence.
The House deeply respects the work of Select Committees across the House. They do incredibly important work on behalf of all the peoples of the United Kingdom, and the Government remains a strong supporter of the Select Committee system. In accordance with traditional practice, the Leader of the House brought forward motions on Thursday 7 June and Thursday 28 June 2018 to raise the activities of Dominic Cummings as a matter of privilege following his refusal to obey the DCMS Committee’s order to attend and his subsequent refusal to obey the House’s order of 7 June 2018.
It is vital to the work of Select Committees that they can obtain full and accurate evidence from witnesses as part of their inquiries. I thank the members of the Committee of Privileges for undertaking the report and the members of the DCMS Committee for their work on behalf of Parliament. The report from the Privileges Committee concluded that it accepted the DCMS Committee’s view that the evidence it sought from Mr Cummings was relevant to its inquiry and that his refusal to appear constituted a significant interference with its work. The report states that Mr Cummings committed a contempt both by his initial refusal to obey the DCMS Committee’s order to attend and by his subsequent refusal to obey the House’s order. The Committee recommended that the House admonish Mr Cummings for his contempt, and it is for the House to determine whether to endorse these conclusions.
Mr Cummings has raised questions about the enforceability of the House’s powers and those of its Committee’s to secure evidence. I know that the Committee of Privileges intends to consider this matter further, and we await its conclusions, but today’s debate underlines the right of Select Committees to undertake their duties  as assigned to them by the House. The Government have full respect for the privileges of the House of Commons and will continue to uphold them. They are crucial to the independence of Parliament and the strength of our democracy. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

John Bercow: Before the debate gets under way, I want to say one thing. From experience, I am clear in my own mind—and I am reinforced in my view by the specialist advice of the Clerks—that the focus of this motion is narrow. The Minister rightly stuck to its proper focus. This is not an occasion—I repeat not an occasion—for airing all the arguments about the conduct of the referendum campaign, Vote Leave, tactics used, fake news, and so on. That is not for today—I repeat not for today. This is about the rights of this House and the appearance and non-appearance of witnesses, the issue of compliance with the express wishes of the House and the issue of consequences for violation of our rights. If people have got speeches prepared in which they want to rehearse again all the arguments about the referendum campaign, I suggest the speedy and liberal application of the blue pencil. It is not required; indeed, it is required not to happen. We must not play games with the House’s procedures. I am extremely grateful to the Minister who moved the motion.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for presenting the motion, and note that the Leader of the House is occupied with important matters elsewhere. I also thank the Committee of Privileges, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for all its work in producing the report.
This is not the first Committee report on the conduct of Mr Dominic Cummings. On 5 June 2018, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee published a special report stating that it had first invited, then ordered Mr Cummings to give oral evidence as part of its inquiry into fake news, and that he had failed to comply with that order. On 7 June 2018, the House resolved that Mr Cummings should
“give an undertaking to the Committee, no later than 6pm on 11 June 2018, to appear before that Committee at a time on or before 20 June 2018.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 492.]
However, on 20 June 2018 the Chair of the DCMS Committee, the hon. Member for Folkestone and  Hythe (Damian Collins), reported to the House that Mr Cummings had failed to comply with the order of 7 June. The Leader of the House tabled a motion on 28 June that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges, and the House supported it.
In the annex to the report, on page 11, the Committee of Privileges helpfully set out the procedure that it would follow in inviting Mr Cummings to provide the DCMS Committee with oral and written evidence, so he has benefited from due process. It made a number of recommendations, and accepted the view of the DCMS Committee that the evidence that it sought from Mr Cummings was relevant to its inquiry and that his refusal to attend constituted a significant interference with its work. The Committee of Privileges
rejected Mr Cummings’s argument as to why he did not appear before the DCMS Committee. He had been offered a series of dates for a hearing, and had not supplied any evidence that suggested he was at significant risk of prosecution. The report states :
“The fact that a prospective witness takes a different view on policy or political issues from a select committee…does not constitute grounds to refuse to appear before that committee.”
Many of us who are members of Select Committees often hear evidence from all sides. It is the right of a Select Committee to do that, and to form a view based on the evidence.
The Committee of Privileges accepted the DCMS Committee’s view that in not giving it the evidence that it sought, Mr Cummings had committed a contempt both by his refusal to obey its order to attend and by his subsequent refusal to obey the House’s order of 7 June 2018. The report states:
“Attending the hearing and defending his position when called upon to do so would have been the right thing to do.”
The Committee recommends that the House should admonish Mr Cummings for his contempt, and that the admonishment should take the form of a resolution of the House. The resolution, if agreed to, should be communicated to Mr Cummings by the Clerk of the House.
I thank the Committee again for its work, and I support the motion.

Damian Collins: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his statement. I also thank the Leader of the House for giving me notice that she would be unable to attend the Chamber today, and for the words that the Deputy Leader of the House read out on behalf of the Government. I thank my fellow members of the DCMS Committee, and I thank the Chair of the Privileges Committee and her colleagues for their investigation.
We are not here today as a consequence of a rush of blood to the head and the “at whim” decision of a parliamentary Committee to order a private citizen to give evidence in front of us. Today we are at the end of a process that has run for the best part of 10 months, from the Committee’s first attempts to invite a witness to attend to the process of its ordering that witness to attend, to that being reported to the House and the House also ordering him to attend, and then to the matter being referred to the Committee of Privileges for it to investigate.
I am pleased that that Committee has agreed with the statement in our report that we were within our rights to call the witness, and that the witness should have attended. The witness himself, Mr Cummings, was critical of our Committee’s inquiry, of other witnesses who had attended, and of the evidence that they had given. Our main reason for wishing him to attend was so that he could respond to the allegations made by other witnesses. That is an important part of the inquiry, and also demonstrates the Committee’s desire to hear all sides of the story. We are frustrated in that process when witnesses refuse to confirm dates, put up spurious reasons for why they cannot attend, and then, in correspondence with  the Committee, seek to behave in a way that is contemptuous of its work and, therefore, of the work of the House.

Julian Knight: This is the heart of the matter. The report states that many of Mr Cummings’s communications were highly inappropriate, including some outside the House. He did not do himself any favours in that respect. I personally wanted to hear what he had to say, and I honestly believe that many members of the Committee had open minds and wanted their questions to be answered. Is it not also true that we asked very probing questions when it came to the other side of the debate? We questioned Christopher Wylie very closely about his desire to hawk information to Vote Leave.

Damian Collins: Indeed. The questions that we wished to put to Mr Cummings were highly relevant to our inquiry. They were also highly relevant to evidence presented by other people, including representatives of organisations that had worked with him in his capacity as director of Vote Leave. I think that we should have had an opportunity to put those questions, as a relevant part of our inquiry and the work of the Committee. As the Committee of Privileges says in its report, it cannot be for individuals to seek to interfere with the work of a parliamentary Committee. We should regard that as  a very serious matter.

George Eustice: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, but is there not also an issue of consistency? I am told that Mark Zuckerberg also declined to give evidence to the Committee during the same inquiry. Moreover, it is quite common for Ministers to decline to give evidence to inquiries, including Ministers in some of the devolved Administrations and Assemblies. I think that the point my hon. Friend is making should be applied consistently and across the board to all potential witnesses, and that we should not fall into the trap of singling out one individual.

Damian Collins: I do not believe that we are singling out one individual in this case. It is highly unusual for anyone to behave in the way in which Dominic Cummings behaved towards the Committee. My right hon. Friend is right in saying that we issued an invitation to Mark Zuckerberg, but that is all that we could do. We did not issue a summons or an order for him to appear, because we do not have the jurisdictional powers to do so. He is not a UK national, and is not resident in the UK. We can only issue summonses of that sort to foreign nationals if they happen to be in this country. We said that we would do that, but obviously we do not have an opportunity to do it. So the circumstances in that case are very different.
On the day that we issued the order for Dominic Cummings to appear before the Committee, we also issued an order to Alexander Nix, the chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, and he chose to accept. The personal circumstances of Mr Nix at the time, in terms of the investigations of him and his former company, gave far greater reason for him not to attend than Dominic Cummings, who was not under personal investigation at all at that stage. There were no reasons in law why he should not appear. The normal sub judice  rules that protect witnesses from incriminating themselves did not apply in his case. The Committee sought legal advice in that regard. I think that, when we have gone through a thorough process and there are no particular grounds for a witness not to appear, if the Committee and the House believe that it is important for that witness to appear, he should do so.
I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the privileges of Ministers, but the rules of the House in that regard are very different from those applying to private citizens.

George Eustice: Will my hon. Friend confirm, then, that it is his view that it is illegitimate for Ministers ever to claim that they cannot give evidence to a Committee because legal proceedings on a particular issue are under way?

Damian Collins: The House does have rules relating to matters that are before UK courts and may prevent witnesses from giving evidence, but I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend has cited. I do not believe that Ministers should claim special privileges in order not to give evidence to a Committee, but they do have a different status. I do not think that that different status should give any individual in the country an opportunity to ignore an order from a Committee or a summons to appear before Parliament simply because they happen to take exception to the idea that Ministers have special privileges that they do not have—as, indeed, do Members of the House of Lords.

Maria Miller: I want to pick up the point about consistency. It is not just my hon. Friend’s Select Committee that may have problems with calling witnesses—important witnesses—to take part in inquiries. The Women and Equalities Committee is currently going through a similar process, but we are only one month into requesting an individual to appear before us. Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be helpful if there were more explicit guidelines on the process to be followed, so that it could take place more speedily? I certainly would not want my inquiry on non- disclosure agreements to drag on for a further 10 months.

Damian Collins: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There needs to be more clarity about the process—clarity within the rules as they stand, and more clarity on what the powers of the House are. We have ancient powers, which in modern law cannot be enforced, and they have not been replaced with anything more suitable.

Andrew Murrison: As Chair of a Select Committee, I am sure that my hon. Friend will have shared my experience that the difficulty in getting witnesses to appear is not necessarily around private citizens, who are usually very willing to appear before a Select Committee; it is around encouraging ministerial colleagues, on occasion, and public officials to come before Select Committees. That is where the resistance is. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be at least an equivalence of rules regarding the appearance of private citizens and elected individuals and publicly accountable individuals before Select Committees? We have not got that balance right yet.

Damian Collins: As I said to other hon. Members, I am sympathetic to any Select Committee that seeks to interview a public official or Minister as part of their inquiry. In my three years’ experience as Chair of a Select Committee I have never had that problem, but others have. There is a big difference between a Minister of the Crown and a private citizen, in that a Minister is a Member of Parliament and can be questioned, in this House or in the House of Lords, as part of their ministerial duties. The only opportunity we have to question people outside Parliament, as part of an inquiry, is to invite them to appear before the Committee. There is no other avenue, be it a ministerial question time or debate, where we can pursue that person. That is why the rules concerning private citizens are particularly important. I would be very sympathetic to the idea of looking at the rules for Ministers, but at least other avenues are open for challenging a Minister as part of parliamentary process.

George Eustice: I recall, as a Minister, having agreed to give evidence to a Committee of the Welsh Assembly and being told that it was not Government policy for Ministers in Westminster to attend such Committees, since they had no rights to hold us to account. Does my hon. Friend think that, bearing in mind what he has just said, perhaps a different set of rules should apply to the devolved Administrations, and that Westminster Ministers should be required to attend such hearings in devolved assemblies?

Damian Collins: As I said to my hon. Friend earlier, I think there is a basic principle and a presumption that witnesses, be they a Minister or not, should attend Committees conducting inquiries. Select Committees conduct such inquiries on behalf of the House, with powers delegated to them by the House. I also believe that if a Member of the House of Lords chose to use their special privileges as a parliamentarian not to be summoned in front of a Committee, that would not be appropriate if that Member of the House of Lords held an important public position, as many Members of the House of Lords do.
Other options are available to question Members of Parliament and Ministers that are not available to question a private citizen. The only forum we have to question a private citizen as part of a parliamentary inquiry is to invite them to appear before a Select Committee. That power is incredibly important, because the role of a Select Committee is not just to scrutinise the work of a Government Department or a public body, but to scrutinise other matters of public interest, where a Committee believes there is a case for Government intervention, new rules or new laws on something important. It is for the Committees to determine the scope of their inquiries, and witnesses should attend when required. It is very rare that witnesses choose not to attend.

John Redwood: Of course, Mr Cummings cannot be with us today—and did not want to be with us on another occasion. Did he give any indication that he thought there was some legal reason why it would be better if he did not attend?

Damian Collins: The correspondence between myself as Chair of the Committee and Mr Cummings is published in full in the Committee’s report, so any Member can read that and make their own judgment as to the case  that Mr Cummings made. Obviously, the matter was also reviewed by the Privileges Committee, which also invited Mr Cummings to speak to it as part of its inquiry, which he declined. Mr Cummings stated that other cases were involved, and that he had been guided by the people he had spoken to not to appear, but there was no reason in law for that. He was not under personal investigation; he was not likely to be charged with an offence. He may have all sorts of private grounds for not wanting to do it, but unless there is a particular legal reason why witnesses should not appear, I do not believe it is good enough for them to create reasons why they would rather not give evidence; that would undermine the whole process. If a witness declines to give evidence simply because it is unsatisfactory to him to do so, I do not think we should accept it.

George Eustice: Does my hon. Friend not have at least some sympathy for the argument that Vote Leave was under investigation by the Electoral Commission—a full-scale legal investigation? Given that that was an ongoing investigation, a request to give evidence after that had concluded was not at all unreasonable.

Damian Collins: We had a similar issue with other witnesses during the inquiry. When Arron Banks gave evidence to the Committee, some aspects of Leave.EU’s work that were relevant to the Committee investigation were under investigation by the Electoral Commission at that time. My hon. Friend may check the official record of the evidence session. We told Mr Banks at that session that we would not question him about matters that were under investigation by the Electoral Commission, as it would not be proper to do so, but there were a large number of other topics on which we wanted to pursue relevant lines of inquiry.
It was exactly the same with Dominic Cummings. We could have reached an accommodation, but he was not prepared, in principle, to attend. During the course of our correspondence we set out why we thought he should attend, and it became quite clear that once he was aware that we were determined to issue an order requesting that he appear on a certain day, he would refuse point-blank to appear at all. He then requested all sorts of other conditions—that he would not appear before the DCMS Committee but he might appear before a specially constructed ad hoc Committee of the House, and that members of the Committee should swear an oath before questioning him, in addition to his swearing an oath. This is nonsense. We either respect our rules and the powers that we have, or we do not.
Not just my Committee found this. I am sure that the Chair of the Privileges Committee will speak for herself about her inquiry. During the Treasury Committee’s inquiry before the referendum, different parties were invited to give evidence, and it too is scathing about the experience of dealing with Mr Cummings and the general contempt that he showed. We have to accept that if we do not really take our own powers seriously, other people will behave in a similar way. Other people will look at this case and say, “Actually, you can just ignore the Committees’ requests. There is nothing they can do.”
There are often important reasons why Committees wish to call in private citizens to account for their work. Mr Cummings is not just a private citizen going about  his business in a quiet part of the country. He has held a series of important offices, he is a former Government special adviser and he was director of an incredibly important national political campaign. The work of that campaign had been referenced already in a parliamentary inquiry, and we wished to ask him about the evidence that had been given, of which he himself was critical and to which he felt there should have been some right to reply.

Hugo Swire: Over the past few years, the likes of Rupert Murdoch have appeared before Committees, and we have seen Sir Philip Green appearing—not wholly successfully—before Committees. Surely, if people of that stature are prepared to face a Committee, others of lesser stature should do so too.

Damian Collins: That is absolutely right. I was a member of the Committee when Rupert Murdoch came to give evidence, in response to a summons of the House. That was right in the middle of the phone-hacking scandal, with legal cases left, right and centre—massive challenges for that business—and yet he considered that it was his responsibility and the proper thing to respond, give evidence in person and answer all the Committee’s questions. If it is good enough for someone of the stature of Rupert Murdoch, surely Dominic Cummings could find time in his busy schedule as well. There was no reason why he should not have done so.
There have been other times when my Committee has struggled to get witnesses to attend and they have attended at the last minute. We are going through that process now with some companies. We may wish to call other organisations as well. We saw during our inquiry that other political campaigns, such as the shadowy Mainstream Network, which was advertising last year on Facebook, were seeking to get members of the public to lobby their MP on what they should or should not do on the Brexit withdrawal agreement. Other organisations, such as We are the 52% and Britain’s Future, are doing that right now. We might want to call in such organisations in future as part of investigations, but they could look at the behaviour of Dominic Cummings and say, “We are disinclined to come, and there is not much you can do about it.”
People often cite the ancient powers of the House to lock people up in a prison under Big Ben or in the House, and those powers technically still exist, but they would rightly be considered to be unenforceable. The House must therefore debate and decide what we want to do when witnesses decline to attend. There should be a proper process; it should not just be down to the arbitrary summons of 11 Members of Parliament. There should be a proper process to check—as the Privileges Committee has done—that the Committee was following due process, that it had good grounds, and that there was a public interest in the witness attending. Then, when they fail to attend, there should be some clear sanction. In other Parliaments in the world, there are rules in such cases—a referral to court or some other body that makes the final decision and imposes a sanction. I believe we now need clearly codified rules, on both summoning witnesses and ordering papers.

John Redwood: I am interested in this point. What kind of sanction does my hon. Friend think would be appropriate and might make a difference?

Damian Collins: That is ultimately a matter for the House to determine. Let us look at other jurisdictions. I believe that the United States Congress, for example, can impose a fine or a custodial sentence of up to three months, and I believe that the Scottish Parliament has something similar, but Members will correct me if that is not the case. Other legislatures have processes that include clear sanctions in law that can be applied if a reasonable request for a witness to appear or for documents to be served has not been met. I do not believe that politicians should sit in judgment over private citizens and start ordering those penalties, however. It is probably right that some independent outside body should do that, as happens in other areas of public life. We should determine what our role should be, and if we believe that a reasonable request has been made for a witness to appear or for papers to be issued to a Committee, that should be done. It is reasonable to expect someone who has been asked to give evidence to a Committee to do so honestly and truthfully. If it is proved that they are lying to or misleading the Committee, there should be some sanction for that as well. There is then a separate debate about who should enforce that sanction and what the penalty should be, but if we use these powers responsibly and we expect people to comply with them, there has to be some sanction if they do not do so, as in the case of Mr Cummings.

Michael Fabricant: I am following this argument with great interest. Given the nature of Dominic Cummings—incidentally, I do not think the way he has behaved towards the Select Committee is any different from the way he behaves generally—does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real danger that he would regard an admonishment from the House of Commons as a badge of honour? Does he also agree that we need some form of alternative measure so that future witnesses will not think that an admonishment is the only thing they might have to face?

Damian Collins: My hon. Friend is right; that is an important point. There has to be some penalty. For some people, that would involve damage to their reputation. Someone who is running a public body or a regulated industry, for example, might find that their reputation was damaged because they had behaved in a way that was inconsistent with upholding the high standards of their office. Clearly, Dominic Cummings does not seem to care about those things. We need to ask whether someone who has been found in contempt of Parliament and admonished by Parliament would be an appropriate candidate to hold a public position such as a Government adviser or a member of a public body in the future. Should there be a bar on that?

Julian Knight: Does my hon. Friend envisage a similar bar on someone for being a bankrupt, for example?

Damian Collins: Absolutely; my hon. Friend and fellow member of the Committee makes an excellent point. That is a good example of people finding themselves in a situation of which they are the cause, and of clear penalties being in place that can restrict their future actions and activities, although not necessarily their liberty. Someone who has been found in contempt of the House should face some sort of real-world sanction that takes into account their appropriateness to be a fit  and proper person to hold certain positions and roles, and certainly to be appointed to public office. For example, if Mr Cummings were ever again asked to be a Government adviser or special adviser, these sorts of things should be taken into account, and I am sure that they would be.
There needs to be a further sanction in law as well, including a range of penalties depending on the severity of the offence, with someone in authority to adjudicate and enforce those sanctions. As the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) has said, there should be a clear process so that we can understand how long it should take and, ideally, a witness could be compelled to come within the scope of an inquiry, rather than doing as I believe Dominic Cummings intended to do, which was to offer to come here at some point in the future, knowing full well that that could be one or two years later. Indeed, I do not believe that the conditions he set out in his initial email have yet been met, so he probably still would not come before the Committee, more than a year later. We have to consider whether that is in any way acceptable, because it massively impedes the work of parliamentary Committees if they cannot summon witnesses who are relevant to their inquiries. In his case, we were asking him to come here in direct response to evidence that the Committee had received that was relevant to him and to our inquiry. We had very strong grounds for asking him to come.

Michael Fabricant: I am slightly concerned about one more thing, which was touched on earlier when my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) mentioned Rupert Murdoch. There was a serious criminal inquiry into Vote Leave going on at the time that my hon. Friend is talking about. Surely he would have some sympathy if there was a danger that someone appearing before the Committee might prejudice their own defence, should a criminal investigation then occur.

Damian Collins: Those conditions certainly applied in the case of Rupert Murdoch, because he was asked expressly what he knew about the practice of phone hacking at his newspapers, as was Rebekah Brooks, who gave evidence on the same day. That was a major part of the hearing. Those people could have used that excuse. There are different questions involved here. The right to non-incrimination for someone who is likely to face court proceedings and be charged with a particular offence, or who has already been charged, is already covered by the House’s sub judice rules. There are already clear rules in place for that. In this case, however, Mr Cummings had not been directly charged with an offence, although there were other ongoing investigations. As I have said, we agreed with other witnesses that there were certain things that we would not discuss as being on topic, so as not to interfere with other ongoing inquiries. Nevertheless, we managed to conduct a proper hearing with those witnesses and gain valuable evidence from them. There is no reason why that could not have been done in Mr Cummings’s case.

George Eustice: The argument that my hon. Friend is making is a curious one, because Dominic Cummings was the director of Vote Leave, and the investigation into Vote Leave was ongoing. As the former director of  that organisation, it was obviously legitimate for him to be concerned that the investigation might be prejudiced, in much the same way as a Minister, while not being directly charged with anything, might nevertheless  have concern for proceedings being made against the Government.

Damian Collins: Well, it sort of depends on what Mr Cummings thought he was going to say and whether he thought he was likely to be in that position. As I have said, the Committee wished to discuss a range of issues and topics with him that were not at the time being expressly investigated by the Electoral Commission. Its investigation was largely to do with funding issues and the co-ordination between Vote Leave and other campaigns involved in the referendum. We had lots of questions about Vote Leave’s work with AggregateIQ and about its involvement in data analytics and the way data was being gathered, stored and used during the campaign that were highly relevant to our inquiry. He could have come in to discuss those issues. If there were no grounds for him not to appear, and he just did not want to appear, I do not believe that the House should accept that as an excuse.

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. Friend concede that there would be a difference if the gentleman in question had not wished to appear on account of prejudicing an ongoing inquiry with which he was associated, as against his not recognising the legitimacy of Parliament to summon him to appear? I suspect that in this case the latter applied, not the former, and that there might be a difference.

Damian Collins: There is a difference. I do not believe that Mr Cummings ever accepted the legitimacy of Parliament to ask him to appear, which is a matter that we should take seriously in its own right. From the very start, it seemed clear that he thought he should give evidence on his own terms, in his own way, on his own dates—

Hugo Swire: And to his own Committee.

Damian Collins: And even to his own Committee, yes. He thought it was no business of ours to set parameters for the special ad hoc Committee of the House that should be assembled just to question Dominic Cummings. That is a ridiculous way for someone to behave when they have been asked to give evidence. If he had said at the beginning that he was willing to give evidence even though he did not want to discuss certain topics because of other investigations he was associated with, and that he would discuss other things, that would have been a very different matter. The Committee of Privileges might have taken a different view if that had been the case. It is interesting that he declined to give evidence to that investigation as well, even though it took place sometime after the event. This just shows his general contempt for the House and its practices. He feels that we have no business asking difficult questions or prying into his affairs, but I believe that that is our business and that we have a right to do that.
It is rare for the House to issue a summons—most witnesses come willingly—but when we legitimately seek to summon witnesses to give evidence to our inquiries, we should have that power, and when someone refuses and shows contempt for us, there should be a sanction   and we should have a power to act further. Today’s debate is not the end of the discussion on whether Dominic Cummings should have appeared before the DCMS Committee; it is about how we can take this forward and formalise the powers of the House to ensure that we do not find ourselves in this position again.

Tommy Sheppard: I rise on behalf of the Scottish National party to support the resolution and to urge the House to vote for it, although sadly without any great hope or expectation that doing so will have a great deal of effect. Mr Speaker cautioned us at the beginning of this discussion to try to restrict our comments to the narrow business under consideration. I had wanted to put this question into the wider context of the debate on Brexit, and to consider the wider political questions, but I will not do that. I have taken Mr Speaker’s advice and, in my imagination, I have applied a blue pen to much of what I was going to say.
It is appropriate for us to note why the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee wanted to hear from Mr Cummings in the first place. It was because many of the concerns expressed about the Vote Leave campaign exemplified the concerns about fake news that it was holding an inquiry into. As I said, I shall not go into great detail about this, but we have to say as a matter of record that the Vote Leave campaign stands accused of engaging in lies, propaganda and wilful distortion of the facts. It is a fact that it has been found guilty by the Information Commissioner of breaking the regulations on the gathering of personal data. It is a fact that it broke the law and has been fined by the Electoral Commission on expenses. It would be legitimate for Mr Cummings to engage with the Committee to discuss those things, and his refusal to do so or to appear before the Committee—that is the reason why the motion has been tabled—suggests that he has something to hide or that he cannot mount a defence against the accusations that have been made, which should concern the House.
Hon. Members have said, and I think it is true, that we should be concerned about what admonishment actually means. What sort of sanction or leverage is it at the end of the day? I fear that it is not a very great one, and this instance and others should lead us to reflect on whether our procedures are adequate for House of Commons inquiries into matters of public concern, and whether we need additional powers, as many other countries have, to compel people to give evidence when that is in the public interest. I make no suggestion about how that might happen, but I want to put on the table a recommendation that it should happen.
Finally, we are entitled, without going into detailed political debate, to form opinions and draw conclusions about the intentions and attitude of Mr Cummings as described in the motion. Many colleagues and I watched the recent TV drama, “Brexit: The Uncivil War” which, to my mind, offered a generous and sympathetic portrayal of Dominic Cummings, suggesting that he was some sort of tortured genius—a radical, a free thinker and iconoclast; someone who wanted to engage in the noblest notions of sovereignty and democracy, and who would not debase himself for a moment in gutter politics. I am not sure that that is entirely the case.

George Eustice: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the direction that Mr Speaker gave at the beginning of the debate was for an important reason? This is a serious discussion of an admonishment for someone’s failure to appear before a Committee. It should be about the facts of that decision not to appear or otherwise—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I, too, know what was said, and I will be the judge of whether something stretches beyond or remains within the advice that Mr Speaker gave. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am listening carefully. At the moment, we have not stepped outside the limits, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) is coming towards the end of his speech. We all know that there are limits that we should not go beyond. To mention someone in passing is one thing, but I do not want to get into an argument about the weakness of examples. It is purely about privilege, and we certainly have not stepped outside those limits.

Tommy Sheppard: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been keeping an eye on you carefully to make sure that I do not stray beyond the bounds or limitations that were set. I shall conclude simply by saying that I have drawn my own opinions from what has happened in this case as to the character of Mr Cummings.
Perhaps the truth is rather more mundane. Perhaps he is, after all, just a posh boy from a privileged background who has a sense of entitlement that means he does not think he has to account to his peers for his actions. I fear that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is correct. If we agree the motion, as we should, at Mr Cummings’s next dinner party it will be worn as a badge of honour, and he will continue in contempt of the House, because there are people of his class who regard democratic institutions such as this in precisely that way.

John Redwood: Along with many colleagues, I think that the Select Committee system is a good one, and it can only operate if we invite witnesses to give evidence. If they do not want to appear, we can summon them, so I think the debate is timely. It should not just be about one particular case or person but encompass the important issues alluded to by some of the previous speakers that revolve around the question of what is a compelling invitation and what is a sanction for those who refuse the invitation or the requirement that they should attend and answer questions.

Michael Fabricant: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend so early in his speech, but I want to probe him on this. Earlier in the debate, Members discussed what happened in other countries—for example, the United States, where there are sanctions if someone does not appear before a House Committee. Then we get into a position whereby witnesses say to the Committee, “I am sorry, I won’t answer that because it might incriminate me.” Does my right hon. Friend think that we have to be careful lest we end up with that situation? It is about getting the balance right.

John Redwood: I agree that it is about balance. My hon. Friend has invited me to reach my conclusion before I have made my argument. However, cutting to part of the conclusion, yes, we do need to look at  sanctions, and it would be good if as a result of this debate the relevant Committee considered practice in other good, democratic institutions around the world and looked at which were most effective. We need to be seen, as we are, as a serious body with every right to require any UK citizen to come here and explain themselves, and we need to be able to enforce that in a sensible and proportionate way. I do not think that our current enforcement is proportionate if someone has no good reason to refuse or deny.
I want to develop one or two exceptions to that rule. At the heart of this particular case is the issue of whether or not legal proceedings are under way that could in some way be prejudiced if the witness came here and spoke too widely about the things that the authorities were investigating. There is a sub judice rule. It is always a matter of judgment for any individual who faces that kind of proceeding, and it is also a matter of judgment for lawyers involved in prospective cases. I do not think that we should ignore that, as it could be an important part of this particular case, and can certainly be a crucial part of any future case. If someone has to answer because there is a general worry about their past conduct—I am not talking about Mr Cummings, I am talking about a future case—it is quite likely that there could be a legal inquiry, as well as the wish to have a parliamentary inquiry.
If we are going to have higher sanctions, as I suspect we should, we need to be even clearer about what are the legitimate legal grounds. That brings me to my next point. When people do something that is contentious for the wider public and for Members of Parliament, and which splits opinion in the country, there is a danger of too many inquiries. Suddenly, they are all across the media, and are on the front pages of the newspapers. Everyone is talking about them, and people chase the ambulance—they want to chase the excitement. There is a danger that there will be several Committees in this House wanting to conduct an inquiry into largely the same thing from different departmental perspectives. They may want to hone in on the same key witnesses, because they are so newsworthy at the moment. We may then be in a position where we overload potential witnesses, and get in the way of conducting a fair inquiry that can add to our understanding, rather than just adding to glamorous media reports of our involvement.

Damian Collins: I know that my right hon. Friend is talking in general terms about a future case, but for the record, in this particular case involving Mr Cummings, Select Committees were not competing to ask him to come and give evidence. We were the only Committee that sought to invite him to appear, and we took advice from the House authorities on whether or not the concerns raised about other cases were relevant to our request.

John Redwood: I understand that, and I explicitly said that I was not talking about Mr Cummings in that part of my speech. This is about how we enforce in general, as well as being about the sanction that the House wishes to confirm in the motion against a particular individual. Certainly, Mr Cummings, Vote Leave and all the rest of it might have been subject to other inquiries, because there has been huge political interest in that both outside and inside the House, and it is a  contentious matter. It is the kind of thing where there could be inquiry overload, with more heat, but not a lot of light. We need a period of calm reflection, as I know the Committee Chairman and others are undertaking, to think about a range of possibilities.
There are two issues to deal with before we think of intensifying our sanction regime. First, can a witness give a really good reason, because of some kind of legal advice or legal inquiry? We do not want to get in the way of proper inquiries into possibly serious crimes. Secondly, can we make sure that we do not contribute to chasing excitement, and often false allegations, because an individual is in the media spotlight? Where there is a serious interest, perhaps a lead Committee should take it up and handle that particular person.
It is also important to be fair between the different possible categories of witnesses. We have to bear in mind that an individual will not have the back-up, support and cover for legal and other costs that may be involved in being on the wrong end of an inquiry, whereas a representative of a great company will have enormous support and will have people writing parts of their evidence and drawing on the back data that is needed, and they will obviously have cover for legal expenses.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning the types of witnesses who appear before Select Committees. I simply want to put the record straight. Is he aware that Dominic Cummings’s father was an oil rig project manager, his mother was a special needs teacher and he went to Durham School? To categorise him, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) did, as some sort of “posh boy” is completely wrong.

John Redwood: It is always better to deal in facts than in general allegations or misdescriptions, so I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
The point I am making is that Committees should understand that an individual who does not work for a great corporation, who does not have a well-paid job or who is no longer part of an organisation does not have the same back-up and support as someone who is still the chief executive of a mighty company.

Damian Collins: My right hon. Friend is making an important point. The chief executive of a big company will have a team of people to help them prepare their evidence, but that is not required. Committees well understand that a submission from a company might be different from a submission from a private individual. There are many private individuals who submit written evidence and who freely come to give evidence to Committees without any of that support. All we ask them to do is to come and talk about themselves. In fact, when they seek to give evidence, they have the same legal immunity and protection as members of the Committee do, so they do not have to worry about potentially incriminating themselves or taking legal advice before speaking out.

John Redwood: I was not going to conclude that we should stop asking people who do not have a well backed up job, but we need to understand, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, that if we are asking an individual  who was once in an important position, with all that back-up, to come and talk about events of a year or two years ago, and if they do not wish to mislead the Committee and they wish to be factually accurate, they will need somehow to get access to the records of their past institution and they will need to go through a lot of preparation, and they will have to do it all for themselves or spend their own money on getting advice and legal support.

George Eustice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to be mindful of the unintended consequences if we were to introduce a stronger sanction on witnesses for failing to appear? What if, for instance, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee were holding an inquiry into phone hacking and decided it would be newsworthy to force the parents of a murdered schoolchild to appear before the Committee? That would clearly be inappropriate, and it would clearly be inappropriate to use such a sanction in that situation.

John Redwood: That is another hard case I had not thought of, and it needs to be taken into account as we pursue this general issue of what would be a relevant sanction.
The third category of people is senior officials and Ministers who receive salaries from the public via the Government. I think they should be more answerable than anybody else, because they are, by definition, primarily remunerated by and spend much of their lives working for the Government and the public. I would have difficulties if we found that Committees could not get access to senior officials who work full time for the Government and the wider public or if, in certain cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) mentioned earlier, Ministers did not think they should be answerable to elected Assemblies because they thought it might be inconvenient to give more background or detail on the policies they have been pursuing or the decisions they have taken.
I would want to weight things a bit more heavily in favour of this House having extremely strong powers to demand the presence of senior officials and Ministers, who should not be able to refuse to answer, unless it is a state secret or a matter of national defence, just because it is embarrassing or might reveal that the Government have made a mistake or wasted a lot of money—as if those things never happen. It is our job to tease out those things, and to do so we need direct accountability.
Our Ministers are normally very good, and they have to be, because Mr Speaker or the Deputy Speakers will grant urgent questions, or there will be a statement or a Question Time at which Ministers have to come and give answers. Ministers also normally come to Select Committees. The system is not perfect, but it is rather less satisfactory with senior officials, and there have been occasions when Select Committees have found it quite difficult to get access to very senior officials who know a great deal that is of public interest and should not be secret.
From my memory of my past life as a Minister, there was a bit too much secrecy in government, and there was a feeling in the official machine that everything that happened before a Minister made a statement was somehow private, whereas I felt it was often better to explain some of it. If I had made a 51:49 call but had a  lot of sympathy with the 49%, because it was a collective decision, I found it helpful to explain to the House that I could see both sides of the argument, that we had to come down on one side or the other but that it was a marginal call. That is helpful to the House, but sometimes Ministers seem to think that the 51% call has to be put up as the only possible answer and all other answers are stupid, which does not make for good inquiries or for a good understanding of the difficult and sometimes messy business of government, in which Ministers often make imperfect decisions on insufficient information because a decision has to be made.
Something good can come out of this incident, which may be a more general recognition by this House that we need a stronger sanction for anyone in future who has no good reason for turning down a requirement to come as a witness. We need all UK citizens to feel they should come unless there is a compelling legal reason, but we need to be sensitive to the different categories of witnesses, and we need to have proportionate and sensible responses, according to how powerful a witness is and how much access they have to support and legal advice.

Kate Green: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for this early opportunity to debate the report of the Committee of Privileges, which we published last week, and for tabling a motion in the terms requested by the Committee. She was good enough to inform me that she is not able to be present in the Chamber this afternoon to move the motion, and I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for doing so and for supporting the Committee’s report.
This case has proved rather protracted, for reasons I will come to, but it is essentially a very simple matter, so I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. As the hon. Gentleman outlined, Mr Cummings failed to obey, first, an order of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and, then, an order of the House itself to attend an oral evidence hearing. When the House referred this to the Privileges Committee as an alleged contempt, we agreed a resolution on process that is appended to our report. It is based on a resolution agreed by our predecessor Committee some years ago when considering the case of News International witnesses who were alleged to have committed a contempt by misleading a Select Committee. We have adhered strictly to the procedures set out in that resolution, even though it has had the effect of lengthening our inquiry.
We invited Mr Cummings to give oral evidence, but despite our giving him ample opportunity to agree a date, it proved impossible to do so. In an email to us, and again in his blog last week, Mr Cummings has made various mis-statements about this. I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but I want to put on public record a rebuttal of one or two of his assertions.
In his blog, Mr Cummings states, in relation to the date of a projected evidence session before the Committee of Privileges, as agreed in December:
“We tentatively agreed 31 Jan”
but
“they cancelled the hearing in January and declined to reschedule it”.
Our report sets out what actually happened. At the start of December we offered Mr Cummings a selection of dates for a hearing in January. In response, Mr Cummings told us that he would “probably” come on 31 January—the latest of the dates we offered—but that he would confirm before Christmas. He did not.
I wrote to Mr Cummings on 10 January, seeking confirmation. I received no reply. The Committee’s Clerk emailed him on 23 January, also seeking a response. He replied on 28 January:
“helo ive just seen this, I will reply this afternoon”.
There was no further reply. On 29 January, with two days to go until the proposed evidence session, and having had no confirmation that he would attend, the Committee met and decided that it had no alternative but to cancel the session and bring our inquiry to as rapid a conclusion as possible.
In his blog, Mr Cummings states:
“My last letter to the Committee of 26/2 is below. I got no answer...”
That is quite untrue. On 28 February, two days after his email, I wrote to him to respond in detail to his comments. I received no reply. All these letters, emails and responses are published on the Committee’s website.
At an earlier stage—this is similar to the experience of the DCMS Committee—Mr Cummings had insisted that all Members of Parliament taking part in the hearing should take an oath. I replied, pointing out that that would not possible; we were willing to administer the oath to him, at his own request, but the oath could be administered only to witnesses, just as in the law courts the judge and barristers do not take an oath. In his blog, he described that argument as “laughable”. He also says that the Committee
“replied that No, they didn’t want to promise to tell the truth and sadly they weren’t able to make such a promise(!) but would I come anyway”.
Those comments are completely fabricated. I will not continue outlining the exchanges; anyone who wishes  to can read our full report, and the various letters and email exchanges published with it, and make up their own mind as to whether it was the Committee of Privileges or Mr Cummings who was behaving unreasonably.
Notwithstanding those responses from Mr Cummings, I want to assure the House that the Committee has done its very best to approach the case scrupulously. Our report assesses whether his conduct amounts to contempt of Parliament. It might seem obvious that a refusal to obey an order of the House, or of its Committees, is a contempt of Parliament. However, in certain exceptional circumstances it is conceivable that a prospective witness might be justified in declining to give evidence, if they have genuine grounds to fear that they would be treated unfairly, or that giving evidence might significantly prejudice future court proceedings against them.
The report considers the arguments advanced by Mr Cummings to see whether there were extenuating circumstances that might have justified his conduct, particular in relation to the risk of legal proceedings against him, which Government Members have mentioned today. The report concludes that the DCMS Committee had offered Mr Cummings a series of alternative dates for a hearing and that he had not supplied any evidence that he was at significant risk of criminal prosecution,  or that suggested any significant flaw in that Committee’s inquiry or in its handling of witnesses. Legal inquiries into whether he or others might have been at risk of future criminal proceedings were assessed in the light of assurances that we received from regulators, which led us to understand that he himself was not facing criminal proceedings.
We agree with the DCMS Committee that Mr Cummings’s evidence would have been relevant to its inquiry—a few moments ago we heard more detail from the Committee’s Chair about why that would have been the case—and we agree that his refusal to attend was a significant interference with that Committee’s work. We conclude that he committed a contempt by his refusal to obey first the Committee’s order and then the House’s order. We recommend that he be admonished by resolution of the House, to be communicated to him by the Clerk of the House. We do not recommend the old practice of summoning him to the Bar, which we believe would merely give him an opportunity to grandstand. The motion before the House, in conjunction with the report that it approves, constitutes the admonishment. If agreed to, no further action by the House will be sought in this matter.
Finally—this point has been raised a number of times this afternoon—the report comments that
“the case of Mr Cummings has raised further questions as to the enforceability of the House’s powers and those of its committees to secure evidence”.
The Committee will therefore now return to its wider inquiry into these matters, referred to it in the previous Parliament, and we plan shortly to announce a series of oral evidence sessions. We hope to co-ordinate our inquiry with the Liaison Committee’s current inquiry into Select Committee effectiveness.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Lady’s Committee pursue comparisons to see what might be working more effectively in other democratic institutions?

Kate Green: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that excellent suggestion. I urge right hon. and hon. Member to submit their own evidence to the Committee—we will shortly publish details on how that can be done.
It has been apparent to all of us for some time that the current situation is unsatisfactory. I acknowledge that admonishment is a fairly feeble sanction against an individual who does not appear to feel a sense of shame at his own behaviour. The historical punishments used by the House—fining and imprisonment—have not been used for many years and, although they have not been abolished, it is highly unlikely that any attempt to use them now would survive legal challenge. None of the alternative options—they may be summed up as doing nothing, attempting to assert the House’s rights through resolutions or changes to the Standing Orders, or legislating to confer powers on the House—is without objection, which is why the problem is still with us; if there was an easy answer, something would have been done a long time ago.
Notwithstanding that, the Committee wishes to canvass options vigorously, including, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) suggests, by looking at how other legislatures around the world have dealt with the issue. We will focus not only on ways of  strengthening sanctions, but at ensuring, as we have striven to do in this inquiry, that the House is fair and scrupulous in the way it treats witnesses. We intend to report to the House with proposals as soon as possible.
I will conclude by placing on the record my thanks to my colleagues on the Privileges Committee for their assistance in bringing the report to the House, to the Leader of the House for tabling the motion, and to  the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for introducing the debate. I urge the House to support the motion.

Tom Brake: When Mr Speaker gave the admonishment from the Chair, it clearly had an impact on the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who I think thought that it was perhaps targeted at him, given the reference to not making long speeches about matters that are not pertinent to the motion we are debating. I must say that I felt that, rather as with Mona Lisa’s eyes, Mr Speaker was indeed looking directly at me, given his reference to taking a “liberal pen” and crossing out great swathes of a speech. I have therefore written my speech on the back of the Order Paper.

Lindsay Hoyle: Two minutes, then?

Tom Brake: Absolutely—two minutes, or thereabouts.
This debate is clearly about the rights of the House and the consequences of failure to observe those rights. I am pleased that the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) opened the debate, because I would have had some reservations had the Leader of the House done so. She of course has a connection with the Vote Leave campaign, and in the circumstances it might have been inappropriate for her to open the debate. We have heard from—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are discussing somebody who is not here. I do not think it is quite fair to suggest what that person would or would not do. The right hon. Gentleman would be right to stick to his two minutes about the subject, rather than go into matters relating to the Leader of the House.

Tom Brake: My speech may be a bit longer following that intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will stick to the subject in hand.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) did a good job of setting out exactly how arrogant Mr Cummings has been in relation to the inquiry and the false allegations he has made about the way he has interacted with the Committee. His lack  of accountability rather fits a pattern of a lack of accountability in relation to the whole Vote Leave issue. I know I am not allowed to speak about that at any great length, but given the role that she played, perhaps the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should consider revisiting the appointment of Gisela Stuart as the chair of Wilton Park, which is in the business of promoting good governance around the world. Other key players  in the campaign include the co-convenor of Vote Leave, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are not going to go through the people involved in the campaign. You were advised, Mr Brake, and you know much better than that. You are a much better politician and you do not want to test my patience or that of the House. Let us just move on with your two minutes.

Tom Brake: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Let me conclude. It is clear that the action the Committee has taken and that we are going to take today is entirely appropriate. As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said, it will send a message to others. It would certainly send a message to others if we did nothing. As others have expressed today, I have doubts about whether the panoply of powers or punishments we have at our disposal is sufficient, but it is right that we pass this motion today.

Ian Lucas: This motion is about basic respect for Parliament, for individual Members of Parliament and for Select Committees. Under the exemplary leadership of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), the DCMS Committee undertook an enormous task in carrying out the inquiry. Like all other Select Committees, the DCMS Committee is of course a cross-party group—we have Members from three separate political parties. We worked hard to produce two substantial reports that have been widely approved—by which I mean worldwide—and scrutinised very closely indeed. To obtain our evidence, we took oral evidence from a lot of individuals, many of whom were potentially under investigation, from businesses such as AggregateIQ, Cambridge Analytica and so forth. Under the Chair’s guidance, we exercised extremely seriously our responsibility to make sure that none of the individuals concerned, whom we thank for giving evidence, were prejudiced. We exercised judgment at different times about preventing evidence from being given that might in any way prejudice any other inquiries.
In response to that work, we have had the actions of this individual—I invite all Members present to look at the correspondence included in the two reports before the House—who shows utter contempt, first, for the Chairman of the Select Committee, which is completely uncalled for: and secondly, for the institution of Parliament. None of us here is anything without our office. We are elected to come here and to be impartial, honest and committed in the work that we undertake. All we ask for is basic human respect from those with whom we deal. If Members read the documentation and correspondence from this individual, they will see it is quite clear that he has utter contempt for Parliament, which is in many ways ironic.
We cannot allow to continue a situation in which individuals have such utter contempt. If, for example, during the period some years ago when I used to take part in magistrates courts proceedings and Crown court proceedings, this individual had corresponded with a judge in the terms in which he corresponded with the Chairman of the Select Committee and with Parliament, he would have ended up in the cells pretty sharpish. I am not suggesting that we do that, but I am interested in the work that is going to be undertaken from the position we are in, because frankly we need to put in place some form of procedure, which is not beyond the wit of man or, indeed, woman, to codify the process that needs to be followed in cases where Select Committees take important evidence. That is an urgent task, because we all undertake important work that we want to see done to the best of our abilities.
This is a case in which a contemptible person has behaved contemptuously towards this institution. He should be held properly accountable for that and a proper procedure should be put in place to make sure that the type of distain exhibited to this great Parliament should not be permitted again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House—
(i) approves the First Report from the Committee of Privileges (HC 1490); and
(ii) endorses the conclusions of the Committee in respect of the conduct of Mr Dominic Cummings that the evidence sought by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee from Mr Cummings was relevant to its inquiry and that his refusal to attend constituted a significant interference with the work of that Committee; concludes that Mr Cummings committed a contempt both by his refusal to obey the Committee’s order to attend it and by his subsequent refusal to obey the House’s Order of 7 June 2018; and therefore formally admonishes him for his conduct.

MENTAL CAPACITY (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 18 December 2018 (Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] (Programme)):

CONSIDERATION OF LORDS MESSAGE

(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

SUBSEQUENT STAGES

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Caroline Dinenage.)
Question agreed to.

MENTAL CAPACITY  (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Consideration of Lords message

Lindsay Hoyle: I should inform the House that neither Lords amendment in the message engages financial privilege. I remind the House that the motions relating to the Lords amendments in the message will be certified as relating exclusively to England and Wales. If the House divides on either of these motions, a double majority will be required for the motion to be passed.

New Clause

Deprivation of liberty: code of practice

Caroline Dinenage: I beg to move,
That this House does not insist on its amendment 1 to which the Lords has disagreed, and disagrees with Lords amendment 1B proposed in lieu, but proposes amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 25A proposed to its amendment 25, but proposes amendments (a) and (b) to its amendment 25 in lieu of the Lords amendment.

Caroline Dinenage: We now have an opportunity to deliver reforms that will provide quicker and fuller access to protections for the 125,000 people who are not currently receiving them. That is 125,000 vulnerable people without the legal protection that they deserve, whose families do not have peace of mind, and whose care providers have no legal cover for supporting them. We now have an opportunity to rectify this situation.
In February, the other place considered the 56 amendments made to the Bill by the House of Commons, the vast majority of which were agreed with. However, the Lords tabled alternatives to two of the Commons amendments, and they are the focus of our discussions.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister has rightly pointed out that the Bill will provide a great advantage to those who are directly affected. I do not want to be a total patsy for my local authority, but will she explain what the benefit will be for local authorities, which are responsible for trying to protect people’s welfare and safety?

Caroline Dinenage: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. This issue has been a huge burden for local authorities: they have had to carry out multiple deprivation of liberty safeguards often for the same people and often when those people move from one setting to another. That involves a huge amount of bureaucracy and does not offer any better protection for the individuals concerned. The new service will enable local authorities to do this in a much more streamlined and efficient way. It will save them money and, at the same time, offer better protection for the individuals about whom we all care.
Lords amendment 1B was tabled by Baroness Tyler of Enfield to set out the meaning of a deprivation of liberty positively, rather than by using the exclusionary approach set out by the Government. Noble lords are, of course, absolutely right to want to ensure that any definition is understood by people and practitioners. However, a positive definition of a deprivation of liberty is likely to be subject to a legal challenge as article 5 case law evolves, and it would become unfit for purpose incredibly quickly. This is a view not only shared by the Government, but highlighted beautifully in the other place by the esteemed legal experts Lord Mackay and Lord Hope.
Lords amendment 1B does not link the definition of a deprivation of liberty to article 5 of the European convention on human rights, so creating a risk of the definition set out in statute diverging from the convention. This would mean that people who fall outside Parliament’s concept of deprivation of liberty but within the article 5 definition could not have their deprivation of liberty authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. For those people, only the High Court would be available to authorise such a deprivation of liberty, which, in turn, would give rise to excessive delays in accessing vital safeguards.
That is precisely the situation that this piece of legislation looks to address—there are already too many people subject to delays when accessing safeguards, and we cannot introduce a provision that would further risk this.
Given that the Government have these concerns, we cannot agree with the noble lords in their amendment 1B. However, we know that concerns in the other place are reflected by many across the sector and we have taken that on board. We have listened carefully to the views of MPs, peers and other stakeholders and decided not to insist on amendment 1. Instead, I propose that the meaning of a deprivation of liberty will still be as defined under article 5 of the convention, as it is under section 64(5) of the Mental Capacity Act, but there will not be a clarification of the meaning of a deprivation of liberty in the Bill. The Bill will work alongside the rest of the Mental Capacity Act, so it does not impact on the existing definition.
I reassure the House that the Government are still absolutely committed to providing clarification regarding the meaning of a deprivation of liberty for both people and practitioners. We will use the code of practice to lay out in very clear terms and provide details of when a deprivation of liberty is and is not occurring, and this guidance will reflect existing case law. We will set out the meaning of a deprivation of liberty in a positive framing and in a way that is clearer for people and practitioners. We will also include case studies in the code to help bring this to life. Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 1B will prescribe that the code of practice must contain guidance on what kind of arrangements amount to a deprivation of liberty.

Kevin Foster: I thank the Minister for giving way and I am reassured by what she says. It would not be appropriate, for example, to put case studies on the front of a piece of primary legislation. Will she outline the timescale for bringing that code of practice forward?

Caroline Dinenage: The code of practice is being worked on as we speak. It is very important that we take it forward in partnership with all the key stakeholders and those who are involved at the front end implementing the liberty protection safeguards. Once we are all content that the code of practice is robust and fully covers everything that we want it to it will then be presented to both Houses of Parliament.
This will mean that the definition will be considered regularly. It will remain up to date with evolving case law. It means that we are laying a report of the review before Parliament and that there will be a review within three years of the measure coming into force to ensure that it is working as intended. The review will extend to all the guidance related to the liberty protection safeguards contained in the code of practice and not just the definition. By regularly reviewing the code in this way, we will ensure that there is up-to-date guidance for people and practitioners and this will support the successful operation of the liberty protection safeguard system.
The amendment will ensure that the code clarifies when a deprivation of liberty does or does not apply and provide useful guidance for families, carers and professionals while also ensuring that we do not put a definition in statute that conflicts with article 5 of the convention and I ask the House for its support in this.
I shall briefly turn to Lords amendment 25A, which was tabled in the other place with the admirable aim of ensuring that the authorisation record is provided to the individual and other relevant persons in a timely manner. This followed the Government amendment that clarified the responsible body’s duty to provide information to the person and other relevant persons. Noble lords amended the Bill to specify that a record must be kept if the authorisation record is not provided immediately. If the authorisation record is not provided to the person within 72 hours then a review must be conducted.
The Government agree that it is very important to make sure that the authorisation process record is provided quickly. However, there are some issues with Lords amendment 25A that need to be addressed before it can be put into statute. For example, it does not make a specific person or organisation responsible for recording that an authorisation record has not been provided  for completing a review, so the duty cannot be  enforced. Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords Amendment 25A states:
“After authorisation arrangements, the responsible body must, without delay, arrange for a copy of the authorisation record to be given or sent.”
Government amendment (b) in lieu will ensure that if the responsible body has not done this within 72 hours of the arrangements being authorised, it must review and record why this has not happened. Providing information, including in the authorisation record, is so important to ensure that people are able to exercise their rights. The Government have listened and reflected on the concerns of the other place and have brought forward this amendment. I ask that the House supports it.
Finally, I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to the Members of both Houses. We set out to consult very widely on this piece of legislation and to listen very carefully to the concerns of both Houses. Both Houses have very carefully scrutinised this crucial piece of legislation. I also thank many of the stakeholders who have supported its development. I thank the Bill  team, particularly the Bill manager Sharon Egan, and officials across the UK and Welsh Governments who have worked with the team to deliver this reform. I thank, too, the legal team and my private secretary Flora Henderson. It is through a great deal of dedication and hard work that we will be able to rectify a failing system and provide protections to the 125,000 vulnerable people for whom it currently falls well short.

Barbara Keeley: When we last debated this Bill, I was clear that Labour did not think that the Bill was adequate to become law. The Minister has just expressed her thanks, but we did make it clear that it contained a number of serious flaws and this still remains the case. While improvements have been made in the House of Lords, they do not fix many of the concerns that we still have with this Bill.
The Bill still places more power than it should in the hands of care home managers. From organising assessments to carrying out consultations with the cared-for person, the Bill means that an untrained, or an ineffective, care home manager could end up carrying out the process in a flawed or improper way.
Recently, there was a focus on the scandal of abuse that happened at the Mendip House Care Home in Somerset, with six autistic residents with complex needs. The Safeguarding Adults Review carried out by the Somerset safeguarding board revealed a host of management failures by the National Autistic Society. The registered manager of that particular care home did not address the unprofessional behaviour of a thuggish gang of male staff. This resulted in the following abuse being meted out to the residents of Mendip House: they were “ridden like horses” by staff; forced to crawl on all fours; made to eat raw chillies; and, in one horrific instance, forced to eat food spiked with mustard, which caused the resident to vomit. The resident was then made by a member of staff to drink that vomit.
People living in Mendip House had complex needs and all would have lacked capacity to make certain decisions and all required deprivation of liberty safeguards. The Care Quality Commission had not receive any notifications that DoLS had been authorised. On care planning and recording, the review report on Mendip House states:
“Care plans were very poor with no mental health or Best Interests assessments recorded... DoLS not being followed.... recording poor, plans out of date...”
The Minister has previously said that, through this Bill, the Government
“are ensuring that people’s wishes are always considered and respected, and that people are safe, cared for and looked after.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 757.]
But I have just cited a case where the care home manager neglected both care planning and safeguarding, so what steps will the Minister take to investigate what happened at Mendip House? Will she ensure that such behaviour does not continue under the provisions of this Bill, given that so much power is given to care home managers? Today is World Autism Awareness Day, and we must do more than pay lip service to showing solidarity with autistic people.
A further flaw is that the Bill could restrict access to independent advocates, which is an important safeguard. However, the granting of an independent advocate is not automatic. An overstretched local authority lacking the budget to pay for advocates following years of Government budget cuts could find itself unable to grant an advocate to everyone who needs one.
It is also still the case that the Bill does not give adequate protection to 16 and 17-year-olds who are subject to the liberty protection safeguards. Specifically, it does not grant their parents a right to veto arrangements that they feel are inappropriate. There remains a real danger that these young people will be detained, despite their parents’ objecting to the arrangements. I stress that this is not only an issue for 16 and 17-year-olds, as many young people who have learning disabilities and are going to be subject to this Bill will still be largely reliant on their parents for support and advice. Cases that we discussed in Committee, such as those of Steven Neary and Oliver McGowan, have shown us that parents can find themselves cut out of the process, with their views made secondary to those of clinicians or care staff. That risks real harm to the younger people who lack capacity.
On the crucial issues of care home managers, advocacy and young people—as on many other issues—the Government did not see the value of the amendments that we tabled. I am sure that we will be back here in the future, debating legislation to rectify these flaws in the Bill, but we still have a duty to try to improve the Bill where we can today. I am glad to say that the Government appear to have made some sensible concessions on areas of the Bill that are still to be finalised.
I would like to pay tribute, as the Minister has done, to the people who have worked on the Bill, especially my Labour colleagues who have worked so hard to try to improve this legislation. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for Stockton South (Dr Williams), for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for all their valuable contributions in Committee and on Report. I also thank our wonderful Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who is sitting on the Front Bench now. In the House of Lords, I thank Baroness Thornton, Baroness Wheeler, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and all Labour peers across the House of Lords who have persistently made the case against the Government’s approach to reforming this very complex legislation. They have always had in mind the interests of cared-for people, their families and those who work in the social care sector.
I turn to Lords amendment 1B and the Government’s amendment to it, which contains two elements. The first removes the definition of deprivation of liberty from the Bill. The second is a commitment to regular reviews of this definition, as the Minister has just outlined. It is to be welcomed that the Government have relented and removed their previous definition from the Bill, as that definition pleased nobody and added nothing. The definition of deprivation of liberty is set out in European law. Nothing that we do in this place will change what article 5 determines is a deprivation of liberty; neither   the Government’s initial definition nor Lords amendment 1B can determine that something is not a deprivation liberty for the purposes of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. In fact, all this amendment will do is decide who can be subject to a liberty protection safeguard, and thus who receives the safeguards that the scheme provides.
Submissions to the Public Bill Committee from DoLS leads and other practitioners made it clear that they did not feel that a definition was needed on the face of the Bill. Those professionals felt that they already had  a sufficient understanding of the relevant case law,  and that the definition would be superfluous—so the Government’s definition was not for practitioners. The reason that the Lords pushed for a definition initially was to clear up confusion among lay people as to what constituted a deprivation of liberty, but the Government’s definition was far too complicated to be understood by cared-for people and their families. The Government knew this but would not simplify it further, saying that simplification was for the code of practice.
Given that the initial definition served nobody—professionals felt it was superfluous and that others would not be able to understand it—the only remaining explanation for its usefulness was that it redefined the scope of deprivation of liberty, and thus reduced the burden of applications by removing people from the scope of the LPS. The Government would have had more success if they had paused the Bill and engaged in a detailed consultation on what the definition should have looked like. However, since day one the Government have been determined to drive this Bill through as fast as they can. Ministers have ignored many calls for a pause or to take a more measured approach. Those calls have come not just from Members in this place and the House of Lords, but from over 100 charities and user-led organisations. The Government did not listen. They seemed less concerned with implementing the right reforms, and more with implementing reforms right away. That is never the right way to make or amend law. I am glad that the Government have now changed their approach and removed their initial definition.
I will say a brief word about the definition tabled by Baroness Tyler in the House of Lords. She recognised that her definition was not perfect as she introduced it, but it was clearly a starting point around which a better definition could be constructed. Baroness Tyler’s definition had the major advantage that it was easily understandable to someone without extensive legal experience. In removing it, we have to acknowledge that we are making the Bill less easily understood. As we have heard, the Government’s solution is to ensure that the code of practice contains easily comprehensible guidance on what is and is not a deprivation of liberty. For this solution to be workable, we must ensure that the guidance is written in a way that can be easily understood by a layperson. It is not reasonable to expect cared-for people or their families to wade through strings of double negatives or endless pages of case studies. I hope that the Government will take this on board as they move forward with the promised code of practice for the LPS.
We still have some reservations about Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1B. It places far more weight on the code of practice, which means that we are voting not on a firm proposal, but on a promise that details will be forthcoming at a point in the future.  I am sure that other Labour Members will agree that that is not the way we should be asked to make decisions. To judge the merits of the Government’s new amendment, we need to see the guidance that they are promising. If the guidance contains all the problems that the Government’s definition did, we will simply have moved the problem out of the Bill and into the code of practice.
When the Bill was in Committee, I was made aware that a set of case studies had been produced, containing guidance on what did and did not constitute deprivation of liberty. The case studies were apparently intended to be a draft section of the final code of practice, but they were not widely circulated and were clearly not a final product. Had the Government laid this document or something similar before the House ahead of today, we would not be considering this amendment blindly, as we are now being asked to do.
The second part of the Government’s amendment is a positive development. We are dealing with an area that is ultimately governed by an evolving body of case law. Indeed, the reason we are here today is that the original Mental Capacity Act was inflexible on this point. The judgment of the Supreme Court in P v. Cheshire West and Chester Council redrew the boundaries of the definition of deprivation of liberty. Significantly, it brought people in domestic settings into the scope of article 5 for the first time, but the Mental Capacity Act contained no provisions for these circumstances. The Act’s code of practice was suddenly out of date, and people were left unsure as to what constituted a deprivation of liberty. This resulted in large numbers of blanket applications, many of which may not have been needed. The combination of those two factors produced a surge in applications, adding to the backlog that we still see today. If the Government in 2014 had updated the code of practice, they may well have helped to avoid care home managers making blanket applications for all their residents, regardless of whether those applications were justified.
Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1B, says that regular reviews must be prepared and laid before Parliament, examining the operation of the guidance contained in the code of practice. Obviously, these reviews will only be useful if the codes are then updated. Will the Minister confirm what plans there will be to remedy any future problems with the code of practice? Regular reviews of the code of practice are welcome, and will help to align the code with case law. However, as was the case in Committee, we still have not seen the code of practice. It is all very well the Government saying that they will review it, but we have no idea what they will be reviewing. We are still having to ask to see documents that are fundamental to the operation of the new system, and that is simply not acceptable. Despite those reservations, we will not oppose amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 1B. We recognise that the Government have finally seen sense and have practical steps to allay our concerns.
Lords amendment 25A is much needed, and I am glad that the Government have accepted the principle behind it. When the Bill was in Committee, the Government introduced a requirement for the cared-for person and others to receive a copy of the LPS authorisation record “as soon as practicable” after authorisation has been granted, and I want to give just one example of why it is so important that people know as soon as possible what is happening in cases of deprivation of liberty: the  tragic case of Oliver McGowan. The Minister is familiar with the case, and I understand she recently met Oliver’s mother Paula again, as I did last week.
Oliver McGowan, a young man, died because he was given antipsychotic medication to which he reacted badly, despite express warnings about its possible effect on him. What we only found out recently is that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was not used appropriately in Oliver’s case. The DoLS authorisation for his treatment was applied for after he was given the antipsychotic drug Olanzapine against his express wishes and those of his parents. He suffered an adverse reaction to the drug which led to his death. His family were not aware of the DoLS authorisation at the time, and it was only at the second coroner’s pre-inquest review, a year after Oliver’s death, that his parents found out about it.
The learning disabilities mortality review of Oliver’s death—I am sure that the Minister would agree that it was a flawed process itself—raised concerns about the lack of a best-interest decision meeting taking place when there had been a dispute about Oliver’s treatment. Paula McGowan told me that the 2005 Act
“was not applied during Oliver’s time in Southmead Hospital and we were not listened to.”
That is what Lords amendment 25A is trying to guard against—a situation in which a person is held under a DoLS for weeks without the legal basis for detaining them being explained to their parents or family members. Taken in conjunction with other rights to information contained in the Bill, the amendment will help to ensure that the cared-for person and their family can understand the process to which they are subject.
Lords amendment 25A sets a tangible limit on how long the meaning of “as soon as practicable” can apply in relation to the cared-for person and others receiving a copy of the LPS authorisation. That is important, because overstretched medical and care staff may be undertaking the task, but they may have many priorities competing for their time. In such a situation, it is all too easy to see that what is essentially an administrative step, such as giving a copy of an LPS authorisation record, could be deprioritised and not happen, which is unacceptable.
The authorisation record could be important in enabling the cared-for person and their family members to understand the effect of the LPS. Moreover, it will inevitably form the basis of any appeals against the granting of the LPS. It is hard to imagine an appeal against an authorisation being embarked upon before the cared-for person knows what decision has been made and why. As such, excessive waits for the authorisation record will act as a de facto block to appeals being launched immediately.
Lords amendment 25A sets a firm time limit of 72 hours for the authorisation record to be provided to the cared-for person and others. If that time limit is exceeded, there must be an investigation. The Government’s amendment (b) to amendment 25 in lieu of Lords amendment 25A retains that important mechanism. In practice, it would incentivise professionals to meet their obligations to provide information to cared-for people and their families. We feel that a time limit is the best way to ensure that that is not forgotten.
As I said at the start, we support Lords amendment 25A, and I am glad that the Government have accepted the principle behind it. As such, we will not oppose Government amendments (a) and (b).

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Kevin Foster.

Kevin Foster: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a particular pleasure to called by you to speak in the Chamber. It is also a pleasure to speak in this debate to reflect briefly on a bit of the background as to why we need this Bill. Some 125,000 people are effectively subjected to this procedure but without the appropriate legal safeguards, so I welcome the fact that both Houses are now looking to support the Bill.
I welcome the Government amendments that have been tabled in lieu of the Lords amendments, and they take on their main thrust and spirit. As I touched on in my intervention on the Minister, it will be interesting to see the timescale for bringing in the code of practice. I accept that it needs to be done properly and be consulted on and that there must be appropriate case studies, but one of the reasons for supporting this Bill is to see that come forward relatively quickly so that there is certainty. Perhaps the Minister will put a letter in the Library that sets out the timescale.
I would not expect to hear a date picked out of the air and stated on the Floor of the House—that would be unreasonable and inappropriate—but it would be useful to get a sense of the timescale, because I assume that we are talking about months, not weeks or years. It would be inappropriate to include specific examples on the face of the Bill, but it right that the amendments look towards the creation of a clear code of practice and review, providing the opportunity for the House to consider any reviews and hold Ministers to account, because this legislation relates to our most basic right: the right to choose where we live and what we do with our time.
I listened carefully to the shadow Minister, who discussed how to regulate care homes and to ensure that standards are applied. I am not suggesting that every consultation should be carried out by someone from the local authority. Indeed, as I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, it may be more appropriate for a carer who knows the person well to carry out part of the consultation rather than having someone turn up from the council. Again, this is about how to ensure that appropriate standards are maintained. I will keep to the amendments, but we could have a longer debate about how to ensure that regulatory standards are where they need to be.

Barbara Keeley: In the example I gave, residents who had lived in a care home for a long period had a manager who did not keep their care plans or any documentation, and they suffered terrible abuse. Such things do go on, and I am still concerned that we are giving responsibility to people who are already overstretched and may not be doing or may be unable to do a good job.

Kevin Foster: I accept the point. However, the hon. Lady’s example is not just about standards being ignored, because there was a raft of, bluntly, criminal behaviour and abuse. If we were having a longer debate about care homes and the regulatory system, we could look at whether having the Care Quality Commission cover such a wide range of areas is the best way of ensuring that such things do not happen, but Mr Deputy Speaker is always keen for us to stick to the topic of the debate.
The amendments relating to Lords amendment 1B are appropriate and slightly better than the original, and the amendments relating to Lords amendment 25A make eminent sense. It makes sense to record why something has not happened, because if there are concerns about the management of a care home, there should be a duty to record why something was not done, not just to review it. The management could in theory say, “I’ve reviewed it, but I didn’t record what I’ve concluded,” or try to come up with a conclusion later.

James Morris: On recording things, one issue that arose when we were in Committee related to fluctuating conditions. For example, if somebody were subject to a DoLS, but then medical evidence demonstrated that they could be released from it, that makes it even more important to ensure that records are kept and that there is absolute clarity around the reasons for deprivation of liberty.

Kevin Foster: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. We should not just assume that once a DoLS is in place it will be there for life. For some people, it may apply during a particular period of treatment or time, and things will fluctuate for some people if they recover to a point at which a DoLS is no longer appropriate because they are able to make their own decisions. As he says, the appropriate records must be kept to ensure that that is properly reviewed and borne in mind, so that a decision cannot be made that someone should be subject to this forever. There should be a rolling review, to ensure that those in charge of caring for a person and those overseeing the care are satisfied that it is still the appropriate measure, given its impact on the person’s life.
I do not wish to prolong the debate, given that there is consensus across the House, which is welcome. The Bill will be better for having these substitute amendments, inspired by the Lords amendments, and on that basis, I hope the House will endorse them.

Jim Shannon: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), as I do on many occasions. I agree with what he said. First, I thank the Minister for her commitment, for our comprehensive discussions and for making herself available for each and every person who wished to have input into this process, and hopefully the changes that the Government want to see will be passed.
The Government have gone to some lengths to ensure that this Bill replaces and improves existing legislation surrounding the deprivation of liberty as a matter of pressing urgency. The current system is not fit for purpose—many people in this Chamber and outside it feel that—and this legislative change by the Government is what we want to see.
The Bill implements the Law Commission’s recommendations, introducing a new system for people who lack capacity and need to be confined for care and treatment, ensuring that the system protects vulnerable people, is person-centred and includes a strong role for carers and families. I have had a chat with the Minister about this, and the Bill will also ensure that supported people and their families are supported and included throughout the process. That is very positive.
The supported person will be afforded their rights throughout the process by an appropriate person. The appropriate person will normally be a family member. Carers and families will be given a stronger role, with an explicit duty to consult with them and the supported person. As someone who cares, along with my mother and son and others, for my brother Keith, who was in a motorbike accident some 15 years ago, I know the importance of the carer’s role across the whole process.

Jim Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. For far too long, families have been left out of the equation when they should have been involved. There is an argument for looking at carers’ training and their suitability, perhaps through certification, because there have been lots of cases of abuse in the past. It has gone on for years, and we have to pay particular attention to that. The Care Quality Commission should be improved; it does not have the numbers to do the job. I often follow its reports in Coventry, so I have a good idea of its needs. Does he agree that those areas could be looked at?

Jim Shannon: I certainly do. The Minister has responded to the concerns of the hon. Gentleman, myself and others in a spirit of generosity, and perhaps this legislative change does that.
I welcome moves taken to make the definition of deprivation of liberty as strong as possible. What the Government have done is clear. It is vital that the definition links back to the European convention on human rights and provides a sturdy basis to protect vulnerable people. That is good news.
Members have referred to the 125,000 people who are currently deprived of their liberty without the necessary protections in place. Through this legislative change—which will not be opposed; a very helpful attitude has been adopted in the House of Lords and on both sides of this House—can the Minister indicate what will be done to reduce the backlog?
The Government have been lobbied and have consulted the Local Government Association, charitable bodies and other interested people and groups. As a result, we have a vital opportunity for long-awaited reform, and the Bill needs to be passed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I gave you my commitment that this would be a short contribution, and I intend to keep to that. I want to finish with two quick questions to the Minister. Can she explain how the role of an appropriate person will support and protect vulnerable people in the proposed new system? Secondly, will she confirm that the needs of the supported person and their families will be put first?

Lindsay Hoyle: Just to help, the Minister would need leave to respond to those questions, so the hon. Gentleman is putting pressure on for something that is not available at the moment.

Jim Shannon: I would never put pressure on the Minister—not in a million years; I know my place. I suggest gently to her that those two things could be looked at.

Helen Whately: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who makes such thoughtful contributions. I will be brief, as we appear to have a large amount of consensus on this piece of legislation.
First, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for the work she has done on the Bill, her extremely consensual approach to it and the way she has listened to concerns from Members on both sides of the House and consulted stakeholders widely. It has been a real pleasure to work with her on the Bill, and I thank her for that.
This Bill is critical because it concerns some of the most vulnerable people in our society. We have talked about the fact that there are 125,000 people waiting to be processed for deprivation of liberty orders, and the system is not working, but there are 2 million people who have impaired mental capacity in the country, and we need to get the system right for all of them, not just the 125,000 who are being let down by the current system.
It is also important to say that the Bill builds on more than three years of work and the recommendations of the Law Commission. It has been fully scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the other place has contributed to it, as have members of the Bill Committee. I have received many emails in support of the fact that it introduces a better system, gets rid of the bureaucratic box-ticking exercises in the old system and should be better for both the individuals who are deprived of their liberty and their families.

Barbara Keeley: The work that was done for three years was on a 15-clause Bill that is not this Bill. We discussed that plenty of times in Committee. I think it only fair to be accurate. This five-clause Bill is not the Bill that was consulted on, and it is not the Bill that had three years of work. It is not correct to claim that it is. We spent a lot of time in Committee trying to put right the things that were missing and taken out of the earlier 15-clause Bill, and it is better to be accurate about that.

Helen Whately: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Broadly, I was attempting to say that a significant amount of work has gone into this. I have heard overwhelmingly from those working in the sector about the importance of doing something about the current situation, because it is not working and cannot be allowed to continue. This is urgent.
It is right that the NHS and social care providers will be given a bigger role in the decision-making process, so that people under their care receive better care and their rights are protected. The fact that we have people outside the system unprotected at the moment clearly cannot be right and cannot continue. During the passage of the Bill, I raised concerns about how it will work for people with fluctuating conditions, and I have been reassured by the Minister that responsible bodies will be required to keep individuals’ circumstances under review. I welcome the fact that there is further detailed guidance on fluctuating conditions in the code of practice.
I turn to the amendments and particularly the debate about the best way to define “deprivation of liberty”. It feels like a sensible conclusion has been reached in order for us to move forward, with a plan to develop the   definition further through the code of practice. These things evolve and are extremely complex, and we need a flexible system that meets the needs of our society.
To sum up, the old system is not fit for purpose. The Bill makes important and timely amendments. It is better for individuals and all those around them to ensure that they have appropriate protections for the very serious matter of depriving individuals of liberty.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House does not insist on its amendment 1 to which the Lords has disagreed, and disagrees with Lords amendment 1B proposed in lieu, but proposes amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment.
Resolved,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 25A proposed to its amendment 25, but proposes amendments (a) and (b) to its amendment 25 in lieu of the Lords amendment.—(Jo Churchill.)

EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION (CONSUMER PROTECTION)

Kelly Tolhurst: I beg to move,
That the draft Geo-Blocking Regulation (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 March, be approved.
The statutory instrument will revoke both EU regulation 2018/302 and the Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 in the event of the UK exiting the EU without a withdrawal agreement. This recognises that in the event of a no-deal exit from the EU, there will be no way to enforce effectively the geo-blocking regulation on behalf of UK consumers.
Geo-blocking is the term used to describe traders discriminating against customers on the basis of nationality or of the location of the customer. The EU’s geo-blocking regulation prohibits certain forms of geo-blocking, including through mandating access to all versions of a website in the EU, preventing discrimination between EU customers when distance shopping online or otherwise, and preventing discrimination in the payment terms accepted. This regulation came into force on 3 December 2018. The geo-blocking regulation does not apply to copyrighted online content, such as movies, e-books and video games.
The Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 enabled the domestic enforcement of the geo-blocking regulation. The regulations gave powers to certain regulators and acknowledged the right of customers to bring claims directly against infringing traders. These regulations came into force on the same day as the geo-blocking regulation. In the event of a no-deal exit from the EU, the geo-blocking regulation will be transposed directly into UK law, under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as retained EU law. The Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 will also continue to have effect after a no-deal exit, unless revoked.
It is necessary to revoke both these pieces of legislation as it will not be possible to enforce effectively the geo-blocking regulation on behalf of UK customers after a no-deal exit from the EU. This is because EU regulators will no longer be obliged to bring action against businesses through EU mechanisms for cross-border co-operation; UK civil and commercial judgments would no longer be automatically enforced in EU member states and courts; and the UK Government cannot unilaterally enforce the geo-blocking regulation across the EU.
Given that geo-blocking cannot be enforced unilaterally by the UK across the EU in the event of a no deal, it is not possible to replicate the geo-blocking regulation’s benefits for UK consumers in domestic law. The provisions of the geo-blocking regulation do not apply to transactions occurring solely within one country. Therefore, there is no benefit to UK consumers in retaining a version of the geo-blocking regulation that applies only to the UK.

Jim Cunningham: I have a genuine question: will the Minister tell us how we can protect the British consumer in that particular situation?

Kelly Tolhurst: We are debating a no-deal SI, and leaving the European Union means that the law is disapplied, so by leaving the European Union we are moving out of those protections.
Furthermore, if we do not revoke the geo-blocking regulation, it would result in a competitive disadvantage for UK traders. They would have to continue giving EU consumers preferential treatment, while EU traders would not need to do the same for UK customers. To avoid this, which is in the EU’s favour, we propose revoking the geo-blocking regulation in the UK.
The effect of this statutory instrument is simple. The retained EU law version of the geo-blocking regulation and the Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 will be revoked in the event of a no-deal exit from the EU. The substantive rules contained in the geo-blocking regulation will no longer have effect in the UK after that regulation is revoked. It is important to note, however, that this legislation will continue to operate in the EU. As such, UK businesses operating in EU markets will still have to comply with the EU regulation when dealing with EU consumers.
The changes made to schedule 13 to the Enterprise Act 2002 by the Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 were undone by a separate statutory instrument, the Consumer Protection (Enforcement) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Those regulations were debated and approved by the House on 30 January and were made on 6 February 2019.
The Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 enable the domestic enforcement of the geo-blocking regulation. They also provide for UK customers to bring claims directly against traders that breach the geo-blocking regulation. As the intention is to revoke the geo-blocking regulation in the UK and UK customers will not be able to rely on it thereafter, such provisions would serve no purpose.
A failure to revoke the geo-blocking regulation and the Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 would not preserve UK customers’ consumer rights. Those rights will in effect be lost if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. The only effect would be to continue to impose obligations on UK traders while providing no benefit to UK customers.
The subject matter of this statutory instrument is partially devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The statutory instrument has been consented to by the Welsh and Scottish Administrations, and the Northern Ireland civil service was notified in line with the protocol agreement in place during the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive. I would like to take this opportunity warmly to thank the devolved Administrations and the Northern Ireland civil service for their ongoing co-operation.

Jamie Stone: I rise as a former Chairman of the Subordinate Legislation Committee in the Scottish Parliament. The Minister has mentioned the co-operation at civil service level. May I have the safety of an assurance that there is similar co-operation at political level between those who handle statutory instruments in Westminster and those who do a similar thing in Holyrood?

Kelly Tolhurst: I would like to outline the fact that this was given political consent: the Minister in Scotland wrote to us to give his consent for the statutory instrument.
In conclusion, the statutory instrument simply recognises the practical effect of a no-deal exit from the EU. The Government are seeking to ensure that UK traders are not unfairly subject to rules that do not benefit UK customers.

Bill Esterson: I thank the Minister for her opening remarks. She set out exactly what the existing regulations do and, to be entirely honest, what she is proposing in the case of no deal makes perfect sense. The regulations before us revoke the existing regulations that prevent undue discrimination across the European Union by the blocking of consumers in one country from accessing websites in another member state or by redirection to the member state of the consumer.
A number of questions arise from the Minister’s remarks and from at least one of the interventions she took. She spoke about the fact that these regulations are relevant only in the event of no deal. When she responds to the debate, will the Minister confirm that, if a deal is agreed, the Government have no intention of revoking these or similar regulations? She is engaged in a conversation at the moment, so I hope she heard that question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), who is no longer in his place, asked the Minister a very good question about how UK consumers will be protected in the event of no deal. His question highlighted just how important it is that we do everything in our power, particularly in these next 10 days, to avoid the disaster of crashing out with no deal. That is the best way in which to avoid having to revoke the regulation.

Kevin Foster: The shadow Minister has said that we need to do everything in our power to avoid the UK crashing out. Does he agree that voting for the withdrawal agreement would be the best way of doing that?

Bill Esterson: I think the hon. Gentleman is wandering a little from the issue under discussion.

Lindsay Hoyle: I think he is trying to tempt you.

Bill Esterson: I think he might be. Suffice it to say that that deal has been rejected three times, on the first occasion by the largest margin by which a Government have ever been defeated in the known history of Parliament. Quite apart from the undesirability of what is in that deal, I think we should probably move on. I have a sixth sense that it will come back for fuller debate on another occasion.
The Minister made a very strong case for cross-border co-operation, for maintaining the regulation and for a mutual recognition agreement so that we can maintain protections for consumers and businesses. I hope she will confirm that when she responds to the debate.
I am not able to confirm with absolute certainty that the revocation will deliver what the Government intend it to do. We have to accept the Minister’s word that it will do so. I have no reason not to accept it, but I do not have the technical expertise. The papers in front of us do not allow me to say any more than that, so I have to  put on the record my reservations and those of my party. As ever with the statutory instruments we are being asked to approve, there is no impact assessment. The lack of published consultation responses also makes it that much harder for us to analyse what we are being asked to approve.
Businesses and consumers need confidence and certainty. I note from the explanatory memorandum that a number of business organisations were consulted. Perhaps the Minister could provide more detail on what they said. She has done so on previous occasions, so I look forward to hearing what was said in those consultation discussions.
The regulations that we are being asked to revoke are designed to prevent discrimination based on location. They exist to stimulate the internal market of the European Union and to support the free movement of goods and of free trade through the digital sector. They address the possible restriction on competition between businesses across the European Union market and ensure that consumers have access to the best offers, prices and conditions of sale. They do not limit trade for consumers to goods and services in their own country—that is a very important distinction—and that is precisely what has happened since the regulations were introduced at the start of last year. They also prevent website redirection away from businesses that are not in the consumer’s member state.
If we leave with no deal, the draft regulations will revoke the geo-blocking regulation completely. No deal would end the protections for UK businesses and consumers, as they would not be protected in the European Union. The Minister set that point out very well in her opening remarks. As she said, retaining the regulation in the UK would mean that we could be blocked but would not be able to block against discriminatory practices from within the European Union. Those points are well made in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 of the explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 2.4 makes the point that,
“if we did not revoke the Geo-Blocking Regulation, UK traders would continue to have obligations to EU customers under the Regulation while UK customers are unlikely to receive any of its benefits.”
Paragraph 2.5 states:
“To avoid this asymmetry of enforcement obligations in the EU’s favour, we are revoking the…Regulation in the UK.”
I accept those points, which is why we will not oppose the revocation.
The revocation of the regulations would at least minimise discrimination, but that is a bare minimum and a low base from which to operate. It would be far better not to have to do this and to have mutual recognition after we leave the European Union and continue with an arrangement that protects our businesses and consumers against discrimination as far as possible.
The draft regulations are an example of what no deal means. After yesterday’s latest failure by Members from across the House—but from some parties in particular—to be prepared to find a compromise to avoid no deal, we are one day closer to the dire prospect of that outcome. Of course, the Government should have taken no deal off the table, so that MPs did not have to do so, to avoid what in all honesty are desperate, last-minute no-deal preparations. That is the only way to describe what we are being asked to do today, 10 days before a likely no-deal departure.
The CBI was one of the business organisations referred to as having been consulted. Although I do not have its response to the consultation—I hope to hear it shortly from the Minister—I do have what it wrote to the Prime Minister, in a joint letter with the TUC, about the consequences of no deal. Is it not refreshing to see the leaders of the employers’ largest representative organisation and the leaders of the workers’ representative organisation working so closely together, signing a joint letter to the Prime Minister? That is what leadership in this country looks like and it is a great shame that we have not seen more of it from politicians.
The joint letter makes it clear that no deal would be disastrous for the country—for businesses and for workers—and that also applies to the draft regulations, should they ever be needed. On a no-deal outcome, the CBI-TUC letter states:
“Firms and communities across the UK are not ready for this outcome. The shock to our economy would be felt by generations to come…avoiding no deal is paramount.”
They describe no deal as causing “reckless damage”—[Interruption.] It is a shame that those Members commenting from sedentary positions on the Government Benches did not support some of the alternative options available to us yesterday. The TUC and CBI call for a plan B, which has been rejected by those Members who have been heckling me for the past few seconds.

Oliver Heald: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would like to join me in welcoming the fact that the House of Lords has just passed the Animal Welfare (Services Animals) Bill, which will give protection to police dogs and police animals.

Bill Esterson: I am delighted to welcome the passing of that Bill. I was not quite sure what that intervention was going to be about. I agree that it is an extremely welcome and important piece of legislation that has made progress in the other place.
The TUC and the CBI are calling for a plan B. I hope that, as we make further progress in finding alternatives tomorrow, we do that and avoid a no deal. If that is the case, the Minister will not have to invoke these regulations.
The revocation of the geo-blocking regulation is not the largest single impact of no deal; it is a small example of the consequences, and I hope it is not needed. I hope that the Minister and all hon. Members agree with that point.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister in addition to what I asked her earlier. I understand that there are businesses in the UK that currently use hosting services from EU providers. Can she reassure them about how that access will continue if the geo-blocking regulation is revoked in the event of no deal? The impact assessment takes a very narrow view and does not comment on the number of individuals using services from the EU in this way under the regulation. I hope that the Minister can give some sense of what the impact would be, what the likely outcome is, and how the Government propose to protect businesses in the event of no deal in this respect.
Consumers currently enjoy the ability to buy services and goods from across the EU. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government have assessed what the impact on them will be in relation to access to services and  registration? Will businesses in this country be able to buy services from within the EU if the regulation is revoked?
I and other hon. Members have asked questions about the damage that no deal will do on a small scale through this one set of regulations. One way to express it is to say that these regulations show that the Government have failed to prepare; another is to say that they have not prepared because it simply is not possible to prepare for no deal. These regulations, like so much else that is going on at the moment, given the looming prospect of no deal, demonstrate that. We can overcome the danger of a disaster only by avoiding no deal. I hope that hon. Members from all parties will take note of that and will try to find alternatives. The Government’s deal will not go through, so an alternative needs to be found.

Kevin Foster: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). I want to reflect his comments about the necessity of this statutory instrument, based on whether we have a no-deal outcome. This is effectively a no-deal prep piece of legislation. He is right that we want to avoid no deal. That is the preferred outcome of virtually no one in this House. Some hon. Members might be prepared to accept it if necessary. We cannot go into a negotiation saying, “I’m going to stay here until you finally force me to accept something.” That will never be a successful strategy.
There is an easy way for no deal to come off the table: to agree a withdrawal agreement. One of the ironies of last night’s debate is that there are only two outcomes that we could have without the withdrawal agreement, and the European Union has made its views clear. The first is no deal, and the second is no Brexit—the revocation of article 50. To be fair to Scottish National party Members, with whom I often exchange opinions across the Chamber, their view is that they will not vote for the withdrawal agreement because they would prefer to go for one of the options that does not require a withdrawal agreement—in other words, the revocation of article 50. It is therefore slightly strange to get a lecture from people saying that the deal will never go through but last night voted predominantly for two options that are based on the withdrawal agreement going through as the divorce from the EU. They are arguing about what the future relationship should be, but the withdrawal agreement is the gateway to the future relationship.

Julian Knight: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There is bemusement in Brussels about why we are dealing with something that is downstream—the political declaration—rather than the withdrawal agreement itself. As he said, it is either no Brexit or the withdrawal agreement. Take your pick.

Kevin Foster: Absolutely. Members who do not want no deal and keep coming to the Chamber and telling us, “No to no deal”—a great soundbite, but not a solution—need the withdrawal agreement to go through, unless they are prepared to stand up and say, “I would revoke article 50.” That is not the position that I will take, because I do not think it is right—the referendum  settled that matter—and I am sure it is not my hon. Friend’s position. We therefore need to look at how we get the withdrawal agreement through.
I very much welcome the constructive approach to looking for compromise taken by the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). Sadly, their amendment was not selected, but hopefully it will be incorporated into the Government Bill. I note the Prime Minister’s comments on that. That would ensure parliamentary scrutiny, and it would ensure that Parliament is not unhappy with what comes out in the future relationship. [Interruption.] I see that you want me to relate my comments to this statutory instrument, Madam Deputy Speaker. Putting the withdrawal agreement in place would mean that we would not have to enact this type of statutory instrument. This is a no-deal—in other words, a no-divorce-deal—statutory instrument, not just a no-future-relationship statutory instrument.

Julian Knight: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kevin Foster: I will give way briefly, but I am conscious of time.

Julian Knight: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. He is always conscious of the clock.
Does my hon. Friend agree that paragraph 2.4 of the explanatory memorandum emphasises how disadvantaged we could be by a no-deal Brexit in terms of consumer rights? It says:
“if we did not revoke the Geo-Blocking Regulation, UK traders would continue to have obligations to EU customers under the Regulation while UK customers are unlikely to receive any of its benefits.”
That seems like an absolutely ridiculous position to be in.

Kevin Foster: I have always been clear that 63% of my constituents voted for us to leave in the referendum, and ultimately we have to have no deal as a fall-back if all else fails. If Opposition Members are desperate to avoid that situation—if that is their absolute priority—they had an opportunity to do that on Friday, and I hope they will get another one in the near future. That is not ideal; having a transition period during which businesses can adapt is the right way forward.
If we do not pass something like this statutory instrument, we will end up in the rather unenviable position in which UK businesses will be required to follow a piece of legislation, yet businesses in the other 27 member states of the EU are not. In effect, they could have rules blocking access to their websites and portals based on the fact that we would no longer be part of the EU. Meanwhile, our law would say that—

Julian Knight: rose—

Kevin Foster: If my hon. Friend just gives me a moment, I will finish responding to his previous intervention before I take another one. We would still have to keep that access, and that is why we need to look at revocation of these measures. I will briefly take my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I am conscious that I need to move on to the main body of my argument in a minute.

Julian Knight: I thank my hon. Friend again for giving way. Does this not also emphasise the fact that there are also downstream consequences? I am not talking just  about the one that I emphasised from paragraph 2.4 of the explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 2.3 also states:
“UK civil and commercial judgments would no longer be automatically enforced in EU member”
states. Does my hon. Friend agree that would have downstream consequences for the premier position of UK legal services as well?

Kevin Foster: I am conscious that I could probably expand this debate widely into legal services and the impact potentially from the recognition of judgments between different jurisdictions. A lot of people forget that the EU is not a sovereign state—I do not want it to be and nor does my hon. Friend. It is a creature of treaty, and its actions and rules are therefore effective only through the structures of member states—that is, recognition of court judgments that enforce EU law between different jurisdictions. He is right that if we go out under a no-deal scenario, from Brexit day plus one, that level of co-operation and recognition is unlikely. That is why this SI is needed. Bizarrely, the enforcement of these EU regulations could be pursued in courts across the EU, or even in our own courts, and meanwhile, a judgment looking to enforce to the benefit of a British company would not be recognised at all. It would basically a bit of paper someone would get.
We keep coming back to the fact that if people do not want this type of outcome, they have two choices. There is the Scottish National party’s choice, which is to revoke article 50—[Interruption.] We can hear the cheers coming from SNP Members. Or, we can put through the withdrawal agreement. That is where we are. We can talk about whether we should be in a particular type of customs arrangement, what we would like on security and defence, and whatever. At the end of the day, the withdrawal agreement is the gateway to every relationship with the EU, other than revocation or no deal.

David Linden: rose—

Kevin Foster: I will happily give way to my friend, the hon. Gentleman.

David Linden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Are we not facing a Hobson’s choice? The hon. Gentleman says that we need to support the deal that is before us, but one of the things that I am struck by sitting in this debate is that we were meant to leave the European Union on Friday, yet we are dealing with a statutory instrument on the subsequent Tuesday. Is not the issue that the Government have forced us into this position because the Prime Minister, through her intransigence, set her red lines—like these red lines on the floor that have kept us on this side in this House—and said, “We do not want to listen.” That is why three or four days after we were meant to leave the EU, we now find ourselves being rammed into this position by Her Majesty’s Government.

Kevin Foster: Let us be candid: we are here because there are those in this House who do not want Brexit to go ahead, who voted against the withdrawal agreement—to be fair, that is a principled position from the SNP. This is combined with those who see it as a chance to score some political points, and there are some Government Members who think—perhaps wrongly—that there might be a different type of Brexit if they resist the withdrawal  agreement. I am afraid that they might find themselves with an outcome that is more pleasing to the hon. Gentleman than it is to them, if their position continues.
Let us be clear: the Scottish National party and the Government in Scotland suggested after the referendum that basically, as long as we only left the fisheries policy, they would be happy with Brexit. In terms of staying in the single market and the customs union, it would be debatable whether we would even come out of the common fisheries policy—

David Linden: rose—

Kevin Foster: I will give way again in a moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to offer a point of clarification.
That outcome would not really be about delivering any real benefits from the referendum. To be fair, I note that the SNP’s position is firmly that it wants to stay in the EU. That is a respectable point. I accept that we do not need the withdrawal agreement for that, but the nonsense comes when people say, “I want one of the outcomes where I have to have the withdrawal agreement, but I am now going to vote against the withdrawal agreement.”

David Linden: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is one of my genuine friends in this place. He is right that in 2016, the Scottish Government said, “We campaigned for remain. We did not want to leave the European Union,” but we realised very early on that because of the democratic deficit that exists in this House, we had to compromise. That is why “Scotland’s Place in Europe” looked at membership of the single market and the customs union. We compromised in 2016 when it was very, very unpopular to do so. There has been a process of evolution: we have gone from that compromise to what I accept is a very hard-nosed reality, where the only thing that we can do to protect our economy is to revoke article 50. Does he not agree, however, that it might just have helped things in 2016 if that spirit of compromise had evolved a bit sooner in this place and that we might not have found ourselves, three or four days after the scheduled exit, debating a statutory instrument that could have profound consequences, depending on what happens over the next few days?

Kevin Foster: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We can all look back over the past three years and suggest that there were things that we might have done differently or changed.
“If? What? Could?” is great fun to play—hindsight has 20/20 vision—but the other 27 member states have their own red lines. The idea that if I or the hon. Gentleman had walked in as the UK Prime Minister, everyone would have said, “Ah, it’s you! What can we do for you? Let’s offer you a great deal” is for the birds. The other member states would still have had their own red lines.
As I said, the only things for which a negotiated deal is not necessary are a complete no deal and revoking and remaining—the latter for obvious reasons—but if we want a negotiated deal, we need the prism of a withdrawal agreement. There is a strong argument for saying that even if we did go down the no-deal route, we  would find at some stage that if we wanted a free trade agreement, the first three items on the EU’s agenda would be: clarifying citizens’ rights, which is not particularly controversial across the House; a financial settlement—that might be where a debate comes in; and arrangements to keep the land border in Northern Ireland open. Whether under a withdrawal agreement now or a free trade agreement in the future, those three issues will almost certainly be the basis of any agreement, no matter which of the panoply of Brexit ideas we have been treated to over the last year or two the House, and ultimately the country, decides upon. Once the divorce process is complete, the second phase of negotiations and decision making in the House remain.
Great though it would be to settle Brexit this afternoon, it is time that I return to the substance of the SI: the geo-blocking regulation. [Interruption.] I hear shouts of joy from the shadow Front Bench. Geo-blocking sounds like something to do with a map—a rambler might find their geo-signal being blocked—but it is actually one part of making sure we have a single market online as we do for physical goods. Those of us who grew up in the late 1980s—I am not sure if my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) is old enough, and I am certain the Minister is not—will remember the debate about how much a particular CD or tape cost in the UK, the United States, Canada, Germany and other countries. Nine times out of 10 a CD produced in the same factory, with the same copyright and by the same company would be more expensive in certain countries—that excludes differing VAT rates, of course, because that could change the price in the shop; I am talking about the base cost excluding taxes.
The regulation tried to prevent different prices in different markets arising from differing charging and supply. Those of us who studied European law will know that the Commission tried to eliminate this grey market idea of trying to restrict or increase prices in particular markets across the EU single market—a single market that we will remain a part of during the implementation period, if the withdrawal agreement goes through. The regulation was about making sure the consumers had the full opportunities. Such regulations make a difference. It is eminently sensible that we revoke the regulation—I agree with the Minister’s reasoning, and, as I have said, it would be bizarre if British businesses were under an obligation that EU businesses were not but which EU businesses could enforce against us under our law—but having in place some other appropriate measure would make a difference.
I hope therefore that we could consider that in future trade agreements—and not just with the EU. I have just given the example of the US. With increasing online commerce and trading, we should look to open up to other jurisdictions that use the English language and have similar commercial standards, consumer protections and quality standards. Under future trade agreements, we should look to ensure that businesses large and small that are buying stuff in across our borders can benefit from free trade arrangements.

Simon Hoare: rose—

Kevin Foster: I will give way in a moment.
We want to be able to benefit from a single market online, given that it does not matter if someone buys from Tewkesbury or Texas—or North Dorset, for that matter—if they are sitting at their computer, and as long as the delivery charges are there. It is about that principle of giving consumers access to be best prices possible.

Simon Hoare: My hon. Friend mentioned the English language. Does he share my concern that we often forget that it is a key part of our armoury? It is the international language. It is the language of the internet and the language of the skies, and it is now the lingua franca of the world. We should never forget that it is one of our great tools of soft power.

Kevin Foster: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for turning my back on him while responding to his intervention. I need to address the House, rather than face him directly.
The English language is indeed one of our great tools. When we look at any regulations relating to online businesses, we should bear in mind that the base code of computers is effectively English, because of the history of computer developments between us and the United States. The first computer, as such, was of course developed here, following the amazing theoretical work done by Alan Turing, who, sadly, was treated abysmally by this nation after the second world war in connection with matters that were never a crime. He came up with the revolutionary 01, and set the philosophical basis that would result in the very trading systems that these regulations seek to address.
This is one of our key goals. It is important that we have an effective and competent system of law relating to online transactions, because if we do not we will lose one of our biggest opportunities. My hon. Friend touched on that. Many people go online and happily access information, services and opportunities. They are able to compare prices in a way that would not have been possible before the internet era, because English is pretty much common currency on many internet platforms—although, given that the regulations relate to online shopping opportunities, it is worth noting that people can now interact with the vast majority of online retailers in the language of their choice. There are also the well-known providers’ translation services that we can now use. I used to have a bit of fun when a former Wales Minister texted to ask if I was here: I would reply in Welsh, courtesy of Google Translate.
I will move on, because I know that other Members wish to speak, and that the debate is time-limited. Some other issues on which the Minister may wish to reflect when she sums up relate to Ireland. We have had a great many discussions about the backstop and how we can keep the Northern Ireland land border open, but in these unique circumstances, someone purchasing online in, for example, County Fermanagh can be only a couple of miles away from the online business—or the business behind the online entity—which is based in, for example, County Donegal. There would of course be a different boundary, particularly in the no-deal scenario for which this measure is intended, and I should like to know how we can ensure that some sort of interaction remains. I think it is safe to say that it would be rather controversial if we did not give clear access to Irish websites.
That, in fact, makes eminent sense. There are businesses, cultural links, and supply chains and delivery networks that work across the border. One road crosses the border 15 times in two miles. If something that I had ordered online was being delivered using that road, the farmhouse involved might be in the United Kingdom and the hay barn in the Irish Republic. We need regulations that could deal with the unique situation near the Irish land border.
The Minister rightly referred to the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but Northern Ireland is beset by the fact its Assembly is not up and running and doing what those elected by the people of Northern Ireland should be doing. Although it is right that we are moving to ensure that Northern Ireland’s statute book is in order for a no-deal Brexit, it would be interesting to know what thought has been given to this aspect, given that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not working and that, sadly, it is unlikely to be up and running in the next couple of months, when we may see a no-deal exit. What thought is being given at Westminster to ensuring that there is appropriate legislation to cover online shopping and, bluntly, to ensure that legislation requires fairness between websites and fairness in online shopping between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland?

Julian Knight: It is really interesting to focus on Northern Ireland in this. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be perverse if there were such barriers in the way, given that many of the major internet retailers are domiciled in the Republic of Ireland for tax reasons?

Kevin Foster: I thank my hon. Friend for his, as always, thoughtful intervention. I suspect many of us would not particularly want to rush to help them, shall we say, pay a lower rate of tax in the Irish Republic. During my time on the Public Accounts Committee, I had the joy of discovering that a “double Irish” was nothing to do with a whiskey order and a “Dutch sandwich” was not something I would eat with it—in terms of tax avoidance work.
For me, this is a question of how we can sensibly reflect in legislation the unique position on the island of Ireland. The current geo-blocking regulation provides protection, and there is reciprocity between the two jurisdictions, to ensure that each side’s shopping outlets and businesses may trade without discrimination. The purpose of the new regulations is to prevent the establishment of an operation that charges a different price—as in my CD example—or that blocks a customer living in a particular country from buying, or applies different terms and conditions to their transaction. It is worth noting, however, that there are some exemptions around items that are not permitted for sale. For example, in Germany and Austria there are strict denazification laws to prevent the sale of certain historical items. In addition, an item such as a toy train set from the era, if sold to the German or Austrian market, must not carry certain symbols from the disastrous Nazi regime that devastated those countries in the 1940s, along with most of western Europe. So there are some tweaks that rightly reflect the law in those nations, but in general the purpose of the regulations is to prevent unfairness.
I return to the point I was making earlier. For me, the regulations are about ensuring that the system in Ireland allows trade across the whole island of Ireland, where we would want to see that type of system in place, not  just for sensible economic reasons but in view of the ongoing peace process—ensuring that the single market online across the whole of Ireland may continue. It would be bizarre if we agreed a workable set of alternative arrangements that released the backstop in years to come, but put a barrier around the sale of goods online.
In services, we may well look to move on—change our position to exploit our huge advantage, particularly in financial services, across the world, with trade deals. I am particularly excited at the prospect of a trade deal with the parties to the requests for a comprehensive agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership; there is very strong demand there. Given that we are revoking the current arrangement with the European Union on the basis of a potential no deal, I hope the Minister is considering how, if we do not have no deal, we could look at the type of regulation that might be of benefit and might allow insurance products and so on to be continued.
I am conscious that I have been speaking for a little while. I reassure hon. Members that I do not intend to break one of my records for length of contribution. I recognise that the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), wants to speak; I have no intention of talking him out.
There are a few reasons why we need to look at approving the regulations today. I am very much a fan of free trade. It brings prosperity. It brings down barriers, interlocking economies. Let us be candid—the reason that the European Coal and Steel Community was established was to interlink economies, and the geo-blocking regulations are part of doing online just what we did with coal and steel back in the 1950s. The idea then was that if the German steelworks were dependent on French coal, there would obviously be an issue if a conflict broke out. The theory was that creating a single market and having these types of regulations would ensure that that continued online and that consumers would benefit. They could buy from the best source in the cheapest and most efficient way, or perhaps in the way that provided the best quality, rather than finding themselves blocked out because of price differentials in the markets. In many ways, that might be a slightly unfair practice. I have used the example of CDs. Why should a CD cost more than others produced in the same factory—taking out distribution costs that are very similar—just because it happens to be sold in a different place? It often becomes clear that this is being done to milk consumers where choices are more limited.
This statutory instrument is necessary, but it is sad that it is necessary. Those who keep saying that they do not want no deal also seem not to want many of the deals that are on offer, or seem to want to propose a deal that is reliant on something that they keep voting against. That is not a logical position, but this statutory instrument represents a logical position. It would be absolute nonsense to impose a burden on British companies that is not shared by the other countries in the European Union. It would be bizarre, for example, if I had to comply with legislation ensuring that my website and online shopping offer were open across 27 countries when businesses in those countries were no longer obliged to do that.
It is right that we should pass this measure today and ensure that it becomes law, so that we have an orderly statute book, but there is a better option. Rather than  saying, “I don’t like no-deal SIs because I don’t like no deal”, people should come up with a clear alternative that does not require the withdrawal agreement—[Interruption.] I hear the usual cheer from the Scottish National party Benches. SNP Members would like to revoke article 50 because they see that as the way round this, and they are correct in the sense that we would not need the withdrawal agreement. Members can be consistent in voting against the withdrawal agreement while saying that they do not want no deal if the outcome would be no Brexit, but they cannot keep turning up in the Chamber each day for a groundhog day debate and saying that the Prime Minister should do everything in her power to avoid no deal if they will not do the one thing in their power to prevent no deal, which is to walk through the Aye Lobby the next time the withdrawal agreement is put to the vote.
I will support this statutory instrument because in the end I would be prepared to accept no deal rather than no Brexit. However, I hope that in the very near future we will get an agreement through the House that provides the basis for a future relationship that makes sense and can be taken forward.

Drew Hendry: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). I actually agree with a large percentage of his very detailed contribution, particularly in relation to some of the protections that are going to be lost. Before I get started on the substance of my speech, may I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my shareholding in the digital marketing company, Teclan?
I am amazed at how blasé those on the Government and Labour Front Benches have been about this statutory instrument. It is one of the instruments that will directly affect consumers and business owners across the nations of the UK almost immediately. Geo-blocking legislation is there for a purpose: to ensure that there is fairness for companies. Instituting this SI without any other provisions causes unfairness anyway: having it in place is unfair, and removing it is unfair too. It is one of those consequences of Brexit that highlights the foolishness of this whole process. There is a way to avoid the SI and a hard Brexit. We need to understand that Westminster has failed to make any kind of decision, that we should revoke article 50 and that we should get to the point where we can bring the choice to the people, with the option to remain.
Returning to the substance of the measure, the EU have introduced geo-blocking—we were in partnership on the legislation—to balance the growth of online platforms, with a need to protect small and medium enterprises and consumers. It focuses on transparency and new options for redress. In short, it treats EU citizens—currently us—and other end users in the same manner. It does not take account of nationality, place of residence or the place of establishment. The European Union’s “Notice to stakeholders: withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU legislation in the field of geo-blocking” says that from the date of application the regulation
“prohibits discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment, including unjustified geo-blocking, in certain cross-border transactions between a trader  and a customer in relation to the sales of goods and the provision of services within the EU. In particular, it provides for the following measures protecting customers: ban of discriminatory blocking or limiting customers' access to traders’ online interfaces (e.g. a website) and redirecting them to another online interface without the customer’s prior consent”.
That is the simple right for someone to get what they are looking for. The regulation imposes a prohibition on
traders to apply, in certain defined situations, on a discriminatory basis different conditions of access for customers to goods and services…informally known as ‘shop like a local’”
across the EU. The regulation provides for
“non-discrimination for reasons related to payment. As of the withdrawal date, natural persons residing in the United Kingdom (unless they have a nationality of a Member State) or undertakings established in the United Kingdom will not be able to benefit from Regulation (EU) 2018/302”.
There are no undertakings established by the UK Government, so there is a direct inequity.
The notice says that
“such persons or undertakings who wish to access websites in the EU will not benefit from the aforementioned ban related to access to traders’ online interfaces. This means that a trader could block, limit or redirect those customers to specific versions of his/her website which might be different from the one that the customers initially sought to access.”
Again, that is a clear removal of a right that we currently enjoy. The notice says that
“such persons or undertakings will not have the guarantee to be able to ‘shop like a local’ in the EU in the situations covered by Article 4 of the Regulation, including benefitting from the same prices and conditions relating to the delivery of goods and services as the locals (i.e. the customers of the trader's home Member State). For example, the off-line and on-line sales of goods and services, such as goods delivered or picked up in the EU territory, tickets for sports events or amusement parks in Member States, and the sale of electronically supplied services, such as hosting services, are areas where those customers will be affected…such persons or undertakings using payment means from the United Kingdom will not be protected against traders applying different conditions for a payment transaction from the ones offered to EU customers, or refused to complete the purchase for reasons related to payment, when (wanting to) pay electronically for goods or services.”
The notice goes on to list the rights that we will lose as a result of not being able to participate in the legislation on geo-blocking.

David Linden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and Romanian knight for giving way. He has outlined some of the dangers involved in pursuing this Brexit nonsense. Does he agree that none of this was written on the side of a bus, whether in Inverness or anywhere else in the United Kingdom? The only thing we can do now is revoke article 50 and stop this madness.

Drew Hendry: My hon. Friend is right that that is the only way out of the hole being dug by the infighting in the Tory party, which is trying to settle a dispute that has lasted decades. This ham-fisted approach has left us in this guddle of Brexit and has put people in their homes at risk of losing out, of paying more and of being ripped off because we are losing these protections.
The regulations, as they stand, ban the blocking of access to websites and ban rerouting without a user’s consent, and they end payment discrimination through the revised payment services directive. People across the nations of the UK use online marketplaces such as  eBay and Amazon on a daily basis. I would be surprised if there is a Member in this Chamber who has not received a parcel from one of those companies, and certainly all our constituents, bar a very few, will have received something from these online marketplaces. Both third party traders and the marketplace itself are subject to these regulations. That means loopholes will now open that allow people to exploit consumers across the nations of the UK. These regulations are about treating customers in the same way across the EU, and the regulations are enforced so that people are not affected in that way.
The Minister said in her opening remarks that the regulations cannot be replicated. She said very directly that the regulations are impossible to replicate or replace, but is not the truth of the matter that there is no interest in doing so? The Government are hellbent on trying to persuade their own Members and the rest of the House to support a deal that nobody wants to support, and they are avoiding responsibility for doing anything that would protect the people who will be affected by this nonsensical situation.
That abdication is leaving loopholes all over the place. Citizens are losing their rights and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, any promises to make that up are about as good as a Brexit handout or what is written on the side of a bus. There is nothing here that will give comfort to any of our consumers or small and medium-sized enterprises—the ones who are most likely to be directly affected by the removal of this legislation.
Based on these regulations, from 2019 the Commission will publish certain tariffs for parcel delivery services on a website so that consumers and e-retailers can easily compare domestic and cross-border tariffs between member states and between providers. The website will highlight the highest tariffs to encourage consumers and small e-retailers to look for a better deal, and national regulatory authorities will be required to assess certain tariffs that seem unreasonably high. Regulatory oversight of the growing number of parcel delivery service providers will also be increased.
I mention that because Scotland already suffers from geo-blocking under this Westminster system. I have lost count of the number of times I and other Members with rural communities have brought up the postcode discrimination in both online and distance-selling deliveries to Scotland. Some £33 million a year of unfair surcharges are paid in Scotland for deliveries. Citizens Advice Scotland says this particularly affects consumers in Scotland, with 1 million Scottish residents paying, on average, an extra £19 for deliveries. Some 72% of the extra charges for deliveries directly affect Scotland. This is a long-standing discrimination, and the removal of these regulations, which protect people, can only make matters worse, particularly for people living in rural communities.
When I say “rural communities,” believe it or not, I am talking about cities in Scotland. I am talking about areas of high population density because, as I say, we suffer postcode discrimination. For example, a constituent of mine was asked to pay an extra £90 to have a mobile phone delivered to Nairn. These protections are not being delivered by the UK Government now, so what hope do we have with this regulation disappearing? I have another good example of where the EU has been  able to protect internally. A crash helmet can be delivered from London to Inverness for a £29 charge. The same item could be delivered from London to Croatia or Estonia for £9.99.
I fear that others across the nations of the UK will begin to experience some of the discrimination that we in Scotland have seen over a number of years, and not just in the highlands and islands but in the borders and across large parts of mainland Scotland, because they too will now be subject to these inequities, as other Members have admitted today in their contributions. It is a reprehensible situation.
This statutory instrument brings forward no replacement protections. It does not even address the issue. It is predicated solely on getting through the Prime Minister’s dodgy, duff, dead-duck deal. That is the sole reason for bringing this through without any attention to detail. More rights are being sacrificed on the altar of Brexit. This Government must now put this and the postcode injustices right, especially for Scotland but also to protect others across the nations of the UK who will now be affected. They should do the sensible thing and agree that it is a disaster, as the removal of this regulation shows that there is no good no-deal Brexit; it is just a calamity that should be ruled out. They should then revoke article 50 until we get an opportunity to take this back to the public and give them the choice of whether to remain in the EU, with all the protections they currently enjoy, before those are sacrificed for this wonky ambition of the infighting in the Tory party.
Of course, there is one absolutely guaranteed way for the people of Scotland to enjoy these vital European protections so that we will no longer suffer from geo-blocking, and that is for Scotland to take its place as a fully independent country in the European Union.

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Just to recap, the geo-blocking regulation is an EU regulation that came into effect on 3 December 2018. It is important to note that, up to the end of February, no claims had come forward to the Competition and Markets Authority. It does not apply to transactions that take place entirely within one EU member state.
The geo-blocking regulation prohibits certain forms of discrimination in the single market, specifically: blocking access to, or forced redirection away from, a website on the basis of an internet user’s location in the EU; discriminatory terms of access, which include but are not limited to price offered, on the basis of a customer’s location in the EU when selling goods delivered across a border but still within the EU, wholly online services, excluding copyright materials such as e-books, streamed movies, music and video games, or services delivered in a specific location, such as hotels and theme parks; discrimination in payment terms on the basis of a customer’s location.
The geo-blocking regulation could not function properly on a unilateral basis in a no-deal scenario. Effective enforcement outside the UK would be very difficult, because the UK would no longer operate within the EU’s consumer protection co-operation network or enforcement agencies. EU regulators would no longer be obliged to bring actions against businesses through  EU mechanisms for cross-border co-operation. UK civil and commercial judgments, which were alluded to in the debate, would no longer be automatically enforced in the EU member state’s court, and the UK Government cannot unilaterally enforce the geo-blocking regulations throughout the EU without help from regulators in other member states.
Even if the geo-blocking regulations were not revoked, a no-deal exit from the EU would lead to a loss of protection for UK customers while imposing the same level of obligation for UK traders. The provisions of the geo-blocking regulation do not apply to transactions that occur solely within one country, so there is no benefit to retaining the version of the regulation that applies to the UK.
Let me outline the concerns relating to not revoking the EU regulation. EU consumers would receive preferential treatment in respect of UK traders, while UK consumers would be unlikely to receive any reciprocal benefits from EU traders. That is why we are proposing the revocation of the regulation. Revoking will preserve UK rights. It will not strip consumer rights, which will be lost in the event of a no-deal Brexit, but the regulation would continue to impose obligations on UK traders, with no benefits for UK consumers.
Let me answer some of the shadow Minister’s questions. He is concerned about the effect of this statutory instrument in a no-deal situation. I say to him: please support the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement. We have been extremely clear that we would like to uphold and maintain the highest standards of consumer protection in the UK. If we agree to the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement, we will be able to satisfy our ambition as a Government to maintain high consumer protections and to be able to enter into agreements and negotiations with the European Union so that we can maintain cross-border co-operation. That is what I would very much like to do. We should not only engage in the mutual exchange of information and evidence but work on a framework so that we can work collectively with the European Union on the wider detriment to consumers.
The shadow Minister asked about the impact assessment. He has rightly expressed concerns about impact assessments throughout the no-deal SI process. I have on many occasions tried to explain to him the reasoning behind what the Government have been doing in relation to some of these SIs. On this particular SI, we assessed the impact of the instrument to be de minimis because the costs are below £5 million. As the shadow Minister will know, that means that, in line with the better regulation framework, we did not need to carry out a full impact assessment. The assessment was that the maximum impact could be £1.2 million, based on around 75,000 businesses having to familiarise themselves with the new rules.
The shadow Minister also asked about consultation. On bringing forward this regulation, he wanted to know who we had spoken to and who we had engaged with. As he alluded to, we have consulted and spoken to business representative organisations, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Retail Consortium, and the Association for UK Interactive Entertainment. The feedback was that they had no strong views on these regulations. However, we did  publish a technical notice on 12 October 2018, which clearly laid out our plans for geo-blocking in the event of a no deal.
Let me re-emphasise a point. We have heard a lot today about a potential loss of rights for consumers. I have always been clear in any Committee in which I have spoken on bringing forward no-deal legislation that, whatever the outcome, we are both prepared for and committed to delivering on the high standard of consumer protections that we already have in the UK. We also have a track record of consumer protection in this country and of going above and beyond; in fact, many of the consumer protections in this country go further than those of the European Union.

Drew Hendry: The Minister says that this Government go further than many others. Can she therefore address the conundrum that I raised earlier: why are consumers in Scotland paying so much more for delivery, but being treated so badly compared with other consumers? Why is that still happening if what she is saying is a fact?

Kelly Tolhurst: I was going to come on to that, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it. He and many of his colleagues—as well as many of my hon. Friends—have raised the issue of Scotland’s surcharges for parcel delivery. He will know that I have been working with the Consumer Protection Partnership to see how we can ensure fairness across the British Isles, but I must remind the House that we are talking about individual parcel organisations—as opposed to the Royal Mail—using these surcharges. However, it is true that many organisations are unable to use Royal Mail to distribute their products throughout the country. I remain committed to working with colleagues across the House to resolve this issue and to enable fairness for consumers right across the UK. He is right to raise it and I do take his point.
I just want to return to the point that I was making about consumers. If we want to make sure that we are able to enter into good agreements in terms of cross-border participation and consumer protection and to work with the European Union, my view is—and I will be clear about this—that we should vote for the withdrawal agreement. [Interruption.] Hon. Members reject a no-deal Brexit, but they are not prepared to support something that is on the table that would enable us immediately to have those conversations—

David Linden: rose—

Kelly Tolhurst: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

David Linden: When might we have the opportunity to vote for the withdrawal agreement again?

Kelly Tolhurst: Well, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is asking me that question because he wants to support me and my colleagues on the Government Benches. It is quite right that any responsible Government would prepare for a no deal, and that is exactly what we are doing. I must remind colleagues that this regulation came into force in December last year, and, where we have had to enforce it, there have not, as yet, been any complaints.

Bill Esterson: The hon. Lady demonstrates that she and I are in agreement about the benefits of geo-blocking and the current arrangements that we have as members  of the EU. This regulation is about no-deal preparation, and we will lose those benefits if we leave with no deal. Perhaps she can tell the House what preparations she and her Department have made to ensure that, if we do manage to avoid no deal, there is a mutual recognition agreement that keeps these provisions in place.

Kelly Tolhurst: The hon. Gentleman’s question suggests that he is considering supporting the withdrawal agreement, because he is asking me about the preparations that we have made in the event of that happening. We have been quite clear that we have to agree the withdrawal agreement. As we have said in our technical notices, and as I have said in many SI Committees, we will be working with our neighbours to ensure that we are able to enter into mutual co-operation agreements if the withdrawal agreement is passed.

Bill Wiggin: As the Minister was speaking, I was mulling over the point made by SNP Members about the greater charges for having things delivered to Scotland. I can understand their point; it does seem a little unfair. But has the Department had a chance to do the maths? Is it not clear that my constituents, who are contributing to the Barnett formula, are actually paying more than the people who are receiving goodies from Amazon, eBay or any of the other excellent retailers?

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that particular point. I have made it clear that we need to get into a situation whereby we can enter into close co-operation on consumer enforcement. What happens on geo-blocking will depend on whether we leave the European Union with a deal, but we are here today to talk about a no-deal SI.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) has disappointed me by saying that he will not support the SI this afternoon. As I have outlined today, the very act of leaving the European Union without a deal would make the EU regulation redundant. It would be perverse for us to keep a regulation that would put UK traders at a disadvantage compared with EU traders.

Patricia Gibson: The Minister is talking about not disadvantaging UK consumers, which is a very laudable aim; that is what we all want. Does that mean that she will align with the European Union when it brings in a standard minimum expiration period of five years for gift cards?

Kelly Tolhurst: I remind the hon. Lady that we are already going above and beyond what the European Union is doing on many consumer protection matters. The UK is working on further protections. We will always be mindful of what is coming from the European Union, and we will always be minded to go further. I will ensure that UK consumers are protected as far as possible, and I will be looking into strengthening many measures in the near future.

Patricia Gibson: The Minister is being very generous with her time. Can I take from what she has just said that she is indeed going to bring in a five-year statutory  expiration time for all gift cards? I have been urging her to do so and I have not quite had a yes. Has she given me a yes today?

Kelly Tolhurst: The hon. Lady will know that we are discussing an SI related to geo-blocking, not gift cards, but I am happy to talk to her about gift cards and to make her aware when we decide to move forward with any changes or improvements in that area. I assure her that I am absolutely committed to protecting consumers in this country, and this Government will be working hard to ensure that we do that whether or not we get a deal.
This statutory instrument simply recognises the practical effect of a no-deal exit from the EU, and it is important for ensuring that UK traders are not unfairly subjected to any rules. I am therefore disappointed with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for saying that he will not support the draft regulations this afternoon. Failure to revoke the geo-blocking regulation would not preserve UK customers’ consumer rights, which would effectively be lost if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. The only effect of non-revocation would be to continue to impose obligations on UK traders while providing no benefits to UK customers. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the House.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.

Rosie Winterton: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 277, Noes 41.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Geo-Blocking Regulation (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 March, be approved.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 10 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Protection of Trading Interests)

That the draft Protecting against the Effects of Extraterritorial Application of Third Country Legislation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 7 March, be approved.

Constitutional Law

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 25 February, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Environmental Protection)

That the draft Heavy Duty Vehicles (Emissions and Fuel Consumption) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 26 February, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Animals)

That the draft Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Import, Export and Placing on the Market) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Food)

That the draft Food Additives, Flavourings, Enzymes and Extraction Solvents (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 20 March, be approved.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Question agreed to.

Business Rates

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker for affording me this opportunity to have a long dilation on the subject of business rates. I am under no illusion: I do not think my popularity is why so many people are present. It is all to do with the popularity of and the worry about business rates and their effect on our high streets up and down the country. I am sure Members will have an infinite number of examples of how their high streets have been disadvantaged by the impact of business rates.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend has misled the House, although unwittingly. He is very popular; it is his natural humbleness and modesty that prevails upon us today. In Ledbury, which has one of the finest high streets in Christendom, there are only two shops that are part of the chains that can be seen on ordinary high streets, yet the shops in my constituency, like those everywhere else, are under tremendous pressure. More and more of them are becoming charity shops. Although none of us has anything against that, it is surely a sign of a deep unhealthiness in our high streets.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Ledbury comes second in Christendom after Cirencester, which is beaten by no high street town in this country. My hon. Friend is right, of course. The 80% rate relief that charitable shops get encourages a large number of them. I have a substantial number in Cirencester, although they are in the secondary streets, rather than the main square. I can perhaps beat Ledbury, in that I had only one major chain in my constituency. It was the House of Fraser, and it has recently gone bust, so as far as I know, I have no major high street chain in my constituency.

Peter Bottomley: However modest we may be about each other, it is the popularity of both the subject and of my hon. Friend that has drawn the crowd. In addition to shops, will he talk a bit about the rating imposition on automatic cash machines? Cash machines are needed in many places where the banks have gone, and if the rates go up on them, we will start losing them as well.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend reads my mind. A long way further in my speech, I have a little section on ATMs. ATMs and public loos get a good allowance under the rating system, so I will be talking about that.

Nadine Dorries: I am sure that my hon. Friend remembers well that a long time ago—1997—I used to live in his constituency. In fact, we worked on his election campaign together. At the time, the Cotswolds constituency was booming with pubs and businesses. The high streets in Chipping Campden and other villages were doing incredibly well, but what we now see as a result in his constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting recently, is that there has been a churn in businesses, because many of the small and  medium-sized businesses, due to the high rates and high rents on the properties in his beautiful constituency, find it incredibly difficult to sustain the costs of both high rent and high business rates. This problem is found not just in his constituency but across the UK, due to the high rateable value of properties. Does he agree that we need complete reform of the business rating system?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I well remember meeting my hon. Friend for the first time in the Eight Bells pub in 1997, when we were both a little younger—[Interruption.] She says, in parentheses from a sedentary position, “better looking”—I was not going to say that in case I came within the bounds of the code, which I think might well touch on the sort of remark that I might make. Nevertheless, I wholly concur with her sedentary remark.

Craig Mackinlay: I put on record that I have been trying to take action for a number of years to exempt public conveniences from business rates. Especially in respect of the towns in my constituency—Ramsgate, Broadstairs and Cliftonville are tourist areas—I have always said that public loos are often the first thing that people use and the last thing that they remember, and they should be thus exempted.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sure that the tourists in my constituency will be greatly relieved to hear what my hon. Friend has to say. In my constituency, which is very dependent on tourism, I have been having a big battle with the local council to keep public conveniences open, because it is really important. If someone comes for a day’s outing to the Cotswolds or goes to my hon. Friend’s constituency, they cannot last all day. They need somewhere to go, and I was delighted when the Government gave that sort of relief.

Jim Cunningham: rose—

Rachael Maskell: rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Oh my God, I have got competition. I will give way to the hon. Lady first.

Rachael Maskell: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We have debated business rates on numerous occasions, because York, which is known for its retail offer, currently has about 50 empty properties. Does he agree that the business rates system is broken and that we need to move forward to a turnover tax or a profit-related tax, thereby enabling a much fairer system to be in place?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am particularly pleased to see the hon. Lady in the Chamber today, because she was one of the very few people who were present when I held my Adjournment debate on this subject on 8 October last year. If memory serves me—I am sure that she will correct me if I am wrong—I think that on that occasion, she told the House that there were 24 empty shops in York. If it has gone up to over 50 now, that demonstrates a deteriorating situation. If I have the figures right, and she is smiling—perhaps she would like to give the House correct figures for last year compared with now, if she knows them, but if not, I have them here and I  will look them up at some time during the speech—clearly business rates are having a deleterious effect on the high street. I will come to that in my speech.

Jim Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman and I came into the House together, so we know each other quite well. To be frank, we have had many debates about rates in general terms, whether they were about the poll tax or business tax and so on, and quite frankly, it is about time—I agree with the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries)—that there was an inquiry to have a good look at the whole system of funding local government in this country. What is happening now is that a lot of local government expenditure, because of the reduction in Government grants to local authorities, has been shoved under business rates. As I said about 18 months ago, we cannot go on like this. Something has to give and we have to look at that properly.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right: we have known each other and been friends for a long time, and he has had a long interest in this subject. I will certainly come on to the subject of wholesale reform of the business rating system. Indeed, the British Hospitality Association, which I will refer to later, is calling for a royal commission to look into wholesale reform of the rates. Indeed, it was a manifesto commitment of my party, but the party seems to have gone cold on wholesale reform of the business rates system, for reasons to do with protecting the £30 billion of revenue it raises, as I will refer to in a moment.

Steve Brine: As the manifesto seems to be very popular this week, I will read from it. We said:
“we will also conduct a full review of the business rates system to make sure it is up to date for a world in which people increasingly shop online”.
The pretty market town of Alresford in my constituency has a chocolate box row of shops that includes a beautiful bookshop, but people increasingly tell me they use it to look, view and try, and then go online to buy the books. It is totally untrue that the Government have not done anything to help with businesses rates—we have supported those affected by the revaluation, introduced the discretionary rates scheme and said we will introduce more regular revaluations—and the very good Minister, who is in his place, has done a lot. That said, it is probably time to consider a more structural change away from just property—I understand why the Treasury likes property taxes—to a more transaction-based tax, which might help bookstores such as the one I referred to in Alresford.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that thoughtful intervention, and I want to reassure him and the Minister that I have not called this debate to criticise the Government. I called it to come up with some helpful and positive suggestions for how we might reform system, wholesale or otherwise, while bearing it in mind that we need to raise that £30 billion. Clearly, the Treasury cannot afford any reduction in that amount.

Desmond Swayne: Is the fundamental problem one of the taxation system or the nature of retail and our changing tastes? In my view,  the rating system does not help—it sets high streets at a disadvantage—but fundamentally people have changed the way they shop, and retail has to respond with a better offer and experience.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I have a section in my speech about the changing circumstances of big online companies vis-à-vis the rating system.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I will get a little further in my speech and then accept a few more interventions. If I can make some progress, hon. Members might see where I am coming from.
The Red Book says that the amount collected by the business rates in 2019 is about £30.9 billion, but even this simple proposition is clouded by how much the Government have to provide for a loss on appeals, which alters the uniform business rates multiplier to allow rates under legislation to rise by at least RPI every year. Whatever happens to appeals, rates or reliefs, the Minister and his Department have to make up that £30.9 billion elsewhere.
I come now to the kernel of what I want to say today, and this in part addresses the interventions from hon. Friends. The OECD revenue statistics database makes it perfectly clear that the UK tops the league of taxation on immovable property both as a percentage of taxation and as a percentage of GDP by some margin. The UK paid 9% of rateable taxation in 2016. Our nearest rival, France, paid 7%; Germany just 1%; and Luxembourg barely a quarter. This must be a major reason why manufacturing business is not as competitive as in our nearest European rivals.
To shore up this £30.9 billion of revenue, the Treasury has had to increase the complex array of reliefs and allowances to compensate for some of the most damaging consequences of the tax, so in every Budget more or less, one sees a new allowance or relief to mitigate some of the worst effects of the tax. As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) has already done, I refer the House to my previous debate on this subject on 9 October 2018, when, as reported at column 117, my right hon. Friend the Minister listed some of these many reliefs.
We were all pleased when, in his Budget on 29 October last year, the Chancellor recognised that many small retail businesses were struggling to cope. I am sure that Members throughout the Chamber can give examples of businesses that are struggling to cope with the high fixed costs of business rates.

Alex Chalk: rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I give way to my neighbour from Cheltenham.

Alex Chalk: Nurseries in Cheltenham provide a vital public service for parents, enabling them to go to work, but they are marginal businesses, and it is very hard for them to make money. Circus Day Nursery has written to me saying that it is struggling with the impact of business rates, and that the Government’s great intentions to allow local dispensations to be provided by councils  are not being pursued in practice. Has my hon. Friend any views on the impact of business rates on the viability of the local nurseries that are so vital to our communities?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I do have a view, as it happens. Later in my speech I shall be dealing with discretionary hardship relief from local authorities. Some of that could go towards my hon. Friend’s struggling nurseries, but the problem is that cash-strapped authorities are reluctant to give any discretionary reliefs at all. When we reach a point at which rates retention is one of the only sources of income for the small borough and district councils, they will be even less willing to provide hardship relief.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My goodness! My golly! Actually, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) was first.

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent intervenes, I must make two points. First, I think it important for the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) to be allowed to finish responding to one intervention before being interrupted by another. Secondly, I know that it is very tempting to look at the Member who has intervened, but it is a good idea to face in this direction because of the microphones. Obviously, no one would want to miss a word of the debate.

Helen Whately: The reason for my enthusiasm about intervening at that particular juncture was my wish to raise a point that is remarkably similar to—if not the same as—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). A couple of weeks ago I visited a nursery in my constituency whose staff told me about exactly the same problem. Business rates are a huge challenge to its success as a business, but it provides a very important service for local parents—especially mums, but also dads. Regulations require them to have a certain amount of floor space, so they are hit pretty hard by business rates. I am keen to hear the section of my hon. Friend’s speech that deals with possible cases for extra support, and I hope that nurseries will be considered in that regard.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not facing you. Of course I should like to face you all the time, but my hon. Friends have been tempting me in the other direction. I will try not to be tempted again.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem for nurseries is partly a business rates problem, but it is also connected with the pledge in our manifesto to grant free nursery spaces for an extra number of hours. That means employing extra staff, which the nurseries are finding hard to do. Nurseries—and I visit some in my constituency—are facing difficulties of all sorts. We must help them where we can. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s intervention; perhaps he will say that we can help in some way.

Marcus Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Of course.

Marcus Jones: I thank my hon. Friend. I now cannot remember what I was going to say. [Laughter.]
My hon. Friend has identified the high street as an important aspect of business rates. In the last few years, the saviours of many high streets have been casual dining and high-quality bars and restaurants, and in many places the rateable values are so high—above £100,000 in many cases—that none of those businesses has benefited from the generous allowances and discretionary reliefs provided by the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that we do not kill the goose that laid the golden egg?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has touched on another subject with which I shall be dealing later. He will know that the British Beer and Pub Association has made specific recommendations on pubs. Suffice it to say that in all our constituencies, the hospitality industry is one of the few very bright lights on the high street. The numerous restaurants, bed and breakfasts and hotels are the one thing that is keeping most of our high streets going.
I welcome very much my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s statement in his Budget that small retailers in England with a rateable value below £51,000 will get a third discount on their bills. I know that that will have been a great deal of help to a lot of small businesses in this country, and a lot of small businesses in my constituency have told me how grateful they are for that relief. I congratulate the Treasury on that.

Robert Courts: My hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way. I entirely commend the Government for the package of business rates relief that has been given, although I recognise, as he does, the pressures that high streets are under with the business rates system. I also would be interested in a thorough reform of that system. Does he agree that, in the meantime, there are many things that local authorities can be doing to drive footfall and to help the high street? I am thinking particularly of West Oxfordshire District Council —his neighbouring authority, of course. The two adjoining local authorities work closely together. They have a flagship policy of free car parking, which has done a great deal to drive footfall and to help the high streets, particularly of Witney and Chipping Norton, where we have a plethora of great independent shops. In many ways, those high streets are thriving. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities such as West Oxfordshire should be commended for that, and that we could see that practice spread throughout the country, which would help the high street?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I totally agree with my neighbour’s intervention. His towns are much the same as mine; they are small market towns with a lot of independent retailers. He is right that anything that our local district councils can do to encourage those local independent retailers is helpful. In Cirencester, for example, they have a scheme whereby parking is free after 3 o’clock —just the sort of time when perhaps the high street was beginning to slow down—to encourage more people to come in later in the afternoon to do their shopping. That is precisely the sort of intervention that a local authority can make to help struggling retailers in our constituencies.

Jamie Stone: The hon. Gentleman is not without friends on the Opposition side of the House. He knows my constituency well because he pursues sporting interests in it, and his aunt and uncle—very nice people—are constituents of mine. He knows from his sporting interests that one must give the gillie a tip. If I may draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to his future remarks about ATMs, the distance between ATMs militates against easy access. Where I come from, it is necessary to travel a very long way indeed to get to a cash machine. I would suggest that that is not at all good for the local businesses.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has been a friend of mine for many years, and my family and his have been friends for even longer, so I do know his area very well indeed, especially his family town of Tain. It is a relatively recent phenomenon that the Valuation Office Agency has started rating ATMs. There is a particular quirk in the system: if an ATM is situated inside a bank or a post office, it is not rated, but if it is situated on the wall of the bank or post office, it is rated.
The hon. Gentleman and others—particularly in Scotland, because of the distances that they have to travel—have had numerous debates on bank closures, which may result in the removal of the one ATM in town. I am sure that a factor in the banks’ decision in closing those ATMs must be that they are now rated, whereas hitherto they were not. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might look at that, particularly for all market towns. Up and down my constituency, all my market towns have lost ATMs in the last few years, and in some of those market towns only the post office still has an ATM facility. Now even the post office in some of those market towns is coming under threat. That is becoming a real problem for my constituents—particularly constituents with businesses who need to withdraw cash.

Marcus Jones: Many ATMs are in petrol station forecourts and convenience stores. Many of those places are situated in some of the most deprived communities, and as a result of the business rate levied on those machines, quite often they are put in those stores on the basis that people have to pay to withdraw their cash. People who withdraw £10 or £20 quite often end up paying £1.50 or £2.50 to get their money. Would it not be helpful if the business rates on ATMs could be looked at, so that, hopefully, more people could access their money without paying an exorbitant charge?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have heard the plea from those of us who represent rural areas, where the one or two ATMs in our market towns play a very significant part.

Bob Stewart: Does my hon. Friend have any idea of the logic behind an ATM on the outside wall of a bank having to pay business rates when those that are inside do not? It beats me! Perhaps there is a reason, but I do not understand what it would be.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I understand that there are two reasons. The first is that the Valuation Office Agency can get away with saying that an ATM on the outside of the building is, in the jargon, a different  hereditament from the main building on which it sits. The second argument that is given in the official explanation is that ATMs are often not run by the same company as the building on which they sit, and that as it is a different company, it can be rated as such. Those are the official explanations, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is far more expert in these matters than I am, will be able to give us a better one.
Returning to the £51,000 and the question of discretionary relief as opposed to allowances, the Minister knows that this is the core of my speech. It was the core of my speech last October, and it is the core of my speech today. This £51,000 is still a discretionary relief. While the majority of local councils have now pledged to provide the resources for their local businesses to benefit from this change, there are some that, regrettably, have not been forthcoming with their support of this measure, either by delaying their decision to implement it or by putting systems in place that require businesses to apply for the relief, firmly putting the onus on businesses to take time out from their day job to claim back money that is rightfully theirs. That means that businesses in those areas are being disadvantaged.
Of course this still does not resolve the complexity, and I believe that simplicity is always the key. We all know that small businesses are under increasing and unfair pressure from out-of-town retail parks and online retailers, and I am sure that Members here tonight will have lots of examples of that. For example, for every £1 in business rates that our small high street operators are taxed, the big online and out-of-town retailers pay significantly less, averaging around 16p. We can immediately see the competitive disadvantage for high street retailers, compared with the large out-of-town retailers and big online organisations.

Rebecca Pow: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. There is an area that has been left out of the discretionary discount, and I wonder whether he agrees that the Government ought to look again at the guidance on this. I am talking about grass-roots music venues. We have lots of them on our high streets. This was raised with me by the Creative Innovation Centre in Taunton. These are places where many of our young musicians find their feet; it is how Ed Sheeran started, for example. They also generate money for the local economy, and I believe that they ought to be classed with pubs when it comes to the discount because they also serve food and drink. I believe that a special case should be made for them. It would cost only £1 million over two years in money “lost” to the Treasury, but it would generate so much more for the economy if they could be included in these discretionary rates.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has made yet another good case for a completely different class of business to have this relief. We can see the complexity of the rates system, and it is probably a good idea that we should have a royal commission to look into business rates in their entirety, as the British Beer and Pub Association and the British Hospitality Association are calling for, to see how they can be made to work better.

Rebecca Pow: I forgot to say that a lot of information about this arose as a result of the inquiry by the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport into  the UK live music industry, as it was one of the things that was highlighted. It is stifling our young talent coming through the chain.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am all for anything that encourages our young talent to come through the chain, as my hon. Friend puts it. One of the great strengths of this country, as I meant to say when I opened this debate, is the 5.7 small and medium-sized businesses in this country, especially the 0.5 million new businesses that have been formed in the past five years or so. They are all capitalists risking their capital, many of them with a mortgage on their house to support their business. They work hard, and they succeed, and hopefully those small businesses will become medium-sized or large businesses.
All Governments of all colours have always been tempted to impose more taxation and bureaucracy on those small and medium-sized businesses, because they are easy targets and they do not move. What we should be doing is the reverse—making it easier for them to exist and make profits.

Sarah Newton: I am pleased that my hon. Friend was able to secure this debate. He is making a really powerful case on the importance of small businesses in our communities. Is it not interesting that there are no Opposition Members here at all, while Government Members, even as the House is about to adjourn, are standing up for small businesses? As Conservatives, we are the party for small businesses. I very much commend my hon. Friend’s recommendation that we look in the round at what we can do to simplify taxation on small businesses. That is really important, but as we do so, I have noticed something positive about business rate retention. Local authorities are now working far more constructively with small businesses, so that that income raised in that community flows to them. Local authorities have to be concerned about small businesses, whereas in the past, when they got cheques from central Government they were not so focused on them. In the new scheme, let us think about the link between local authority funding and small businesses.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend, along with most of my hon. Friends, if not every single Member who is in the Chamber, is passionate about defending small businesses. I can see that she is shortly going to make a speech to support her small businesses—perhaps very shortly; I cannot possibly foretell.

Bob Stewart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Yes, because my hon. Friend has been very patient.

Bob Stewart: As a small factual correction, when my hon. Friend said “5.7 small and medium-sized businesses” he meant 5.7 million. That is a small point, and I know it was a slip of the lip.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Indeed it was a slip of a lip. The figure of 5.7 million small and medium-sized businesses is terrific, and shows the entrepreneurialism in this country, which is why our economy is doing so well and why we have such full employment at present.

Priti Patel: I commend my hon. Friend on the debate, which is incredibly wide ranging. I should like to touch on wholesale reform of business rates. The Government have done an awful lot of good work to give discretionary rate relief and to support SMEs in constituencies and towns such as Witham. Does he not agree that wholesale rate reform could be the gateway or avenue to get local authorities in particular to invest in town centre development strategies that could help to grow the base of small business and achieve a much more sustainable local economy that meets local needs as well as helping entrepreneurs and small businesses in towns such as Witham and places across the Witham constituency, and the country, to continue to invest and develop?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We have to be far more innovative, as the world is changing. The digital world is foisting change on us, whether we like it or not, and our local councils and our local people have to be far more innovative and entrepreneurial. That is why I welcome the system that the Treasury has brought in, which will allow local authorities to keep a bigger proportion of the rates of new businesses, as opposed to existing businesses, to encourage them to do precisely the sort of scheme she mentions.

Nadine Dorries: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me a second time. He is incredibly generous.
On innovation, Flitwick high street in my constituency could not be more different from Chipping Campden high street in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Given the housing crisis and housing shortage, it may be that not all high streets can survive and that we need to do something innovative with them.
On a humorous note, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that we met in 1997 in the Eight Bells pub on Chipping Campden high street. For 21 years he laboured under the impression that I was trying to chat him up, and I had to disabuse him of that notion only recently.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I had better not comment on that publicly for fear it might lead me down the wrong business rates avenue.

Dr Caroline Johnson: My hon. Friend has spoken about the high street and perhaps, in some respects, the high street may need to change from being entirely retail to a place where people can meet and be entertained. One issue limiting such change is that many small business premises on our high streets are owned by self-invested personal pension schemes. As such, they need to remain commercial property to remain in those pension schemes. Will my hon. Friend or the Minister comment on whether properties that change from commercial to residential, in line with a slightly shrinking high street, may be able to stay within those pension schemes for a period so that such change is not hampered by the SIPP rules?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I am sure it has been heard by the Minister. I am being urged to hurry up as I have taken an awfully long time, so I will not take too many more interventions.
The rates on Amazon’s nine distribution centres have fallen by an average of 1.3% and ASOS has seen its bill fall by 0.8% because, although Amazon owns 20 million square feet of warehousing from which to supply customers, it does not have to occupy premium premises on the high street to get the footfall that a high street retailer needs. This provides those large businesses with an automatic advantage, making it easier for them to slash prices while maintaining a profitable margin. I have already demonstrated how they pay much lower business rates per square foot.
Although the Government have introduced a diverted profits tax and a new digital services tax, which will raise £400 million, I do not believe some of these very large digital platforms are actually paying the just amount of tax on their turnover in this country that a British business would pay.
I have previously mentioned that the British Independent Retailers Association has long advocated changing the current threshold or discretionary relief to an allowance—the difference being one is discretionary and an allowance is automatic—which would cut red tape for both local and national Government. It could be applied at source, as opposed to being dependent on the local council, reducing the need for the £3.7 billion spend on mandatory and discretionary allowances and reducing the Government’s current compliance cost for processing small business rate relief claims. I have already explained the difficulties with different councils applying different criteria.
Paradoxically, unknown to me at the time of my debate on 8 October 2018, the Minister had answered my written question, 176219, the day before, in which he said:
“The Government is committed to considering the feasibility of replacing small business rate relief with a business rates allowance”.
So the Government had actually conceded the point for small businesses, once the local authority and HMRC systems are linked in line with our planned digitisation of business rates. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary updated the House on where we have got on the matter.

Marcus Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I want to make a little more progress.
The Government want to make tax digital, citing that they will be
“transforming tax administration so that it is more effective, more efficient”.
Would it not be worth investigating how tax could become truly joined up by ensuring that an allowance would be applied automatically, maybe at the point at which the Valuation Office Agency makes a valuation of a property? If it comes up to £51,000, that would automatically trigger the allowance that a business would be able to get, and it would simply be deducted from its bill. What a great simplification of government that would be.
There is a precedent for this, of course. Income tax has a personal allowance for all but the top 5% of earners, and that is automated. I am advocating the same principle for rates. I believe that this policy could get  cross-party support. After all, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report, “High streets and town centres in 2030”, recommended
“that the complexity surrounding rate reliefs and the administrative burden they create for retailers should be addressed”
and simplified. All this needs is joined-up thinking and a plan of action to allow the Treasury to adapt the current operational systems for the benefit of businesses up and down the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you for allowing me to speak about this important subject at length. I hope that, as a result of my speech, we will see some action from the Government to ensure that business rates are reformed.

Mel Stride: We have had a very good debate on the extremely important matter of business rates. I will reiterate right at the start that this Government want to see taxes as low as possible. We have made a number of advances in that respect, as the House will know, in areas such as income tax and corporation tax. Equally, we want the burden of rates on businesses up and down the country to be as low as possible. For that reason, as several right hon. and hon. Members have highlighted, we doubled the small business rates relief, from £6,000 to £12,000 as a rateable value threshold, taking 655,000 businesses out of business rates altogether.
We also switched from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index for the uprating of the multiplier, further reducing the burden by £5 billion over the next five years. In 2016 we introduced £300 million for hard cases, which is there for local authorities to use at their discretion. We doubled the level of rural rate relief, from 50% to 100%, to help small communities where perhaps there is just one pub, post office or petrol station. A number of right hon. and hon. Members mentioned the discount of one third brought in at the last Budget.
I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing the debate. He asked a number of sensible and relevant questions about the whole way we structure our business rates. He asked specifically about the allowance, which we have discussed previously. We are looking at that seriously, but it depends to a large degree on us getting in place the digital arrangements between local authorities so that we can transfer information on business premises owned by the same entity. That programme will be introduced by about 2024, but I am happy to have further discussions with him on the matter.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I truncated the last bit of my speech, but I was going to say that the existing IT platform is regarded by the professionals who have to  work with it as being clunky and difficult to work. Does the re-design by 2024 that my right hon. Friend mentioned include an entirely new programme?

Mel Stride: I will have to come back to my hon. Friend with an answer to that specific technical question, but I will gladly do so.
Several Members rightly mentioned our high streets package. The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) made reference to the fact that it is not all about business rates; it is also about how we design and evolve our high streets to face the changing nature of retailing, which of course includes the rapid advance of online retailing.
Several Members mentioned the digital service tax that we are committed to bringing in by 2020, and we will do so unilaterally in the absence of a multilateral move on the behalf of other countries.

Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing this excellent debate. All these welcome measures that the Government introduce do not really address the fundamental flaw in this tax. Take the economically unlucky town of Harwich, which I represent. A capable family business in Harwich has developed the Pier hotel over the years to make it a real jewel in the crown of an otherwise rather economically depressed town, but what is that family’s reward? They get clobbered for extra business rates. The less successful hotel businesses carry on paying less rates but the most successful hotel and restaurant gets clobbered for a big increase in rates. If the tax operates in that way, how can that be rewarding success in depressed economic areas?

Mel Stride: Earlier in my speech, I went through at length the large number of reliefs that we have brought in to make sure that across the piece we are bearing down wherever we can, particularly in respect of those smaller businesses that might find expenses of this kind particularly arduous. Given that we have had a rather lengthy debate preceding my remarks—

Mike Wood: rose—

Mel Stride: I will not give way at this moment.
We have listened carefully as a Government and will continue to bear down on business rates. I look forward to having further discussions about that with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds and welcome the full and comprehensive debate we have had.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.